|
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 - cybernesco
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 21
276
« on: November 04, 2010, 15:41 »
277
« on: October 29, 2010, 07:35 »
It is down for me as well.
278
« on: October 25, 2010, 14:59 »
Hi All,
If you can't figure out that release issues would climb when 6 million images are added from all corners of the world then that is your choice.
Good Luck,
Jonathan
Do you mean a greater percentage or just a greater number? Just telling us that the number of issues is climbing just because the number of images is climbing is simply stating the obvious and is meaningless.
279
« on: October 20, 2010, 06:04 »
Is there a way for independent stock sites to work together as peers in order to drive traffic? A directory of sites would be a beginning but lists are not so useful. A hub needs to provide search across multiple independent sites. One site which takes people to other sites.
There would need to be agreed standards from go. The independent peer sites perhaps all submitting their updated keywords, links, comp links, to an agreed format and structure. The hub would be a database of that data. And to be completely cell like perhaps everyone in the guild also puts that search box on their own site as part of the agreement. Then everyone is linked to everyone else. Any ideas ?
http://cyclo.ps/
Yeah you got it..... but the difference is each independant would be responsible to host their own images themselves or through third party hosting services NOT THROUGH WELL KNOWN MICROSTOCK AGENCIES. As well each independant would be part owner and responsible to maintain and administer the hub NOT THROUGH A THIRD PARTY WEBSITE.
Nightmare.
Brainstorming.
280
« on: October 20, 2010, 05:10 »
Is there a way for independent stock sites to work together as peers in order to drive traffic? A directory of sites would be a beginning but lists are not so useful. A hub needs to provide search across multiple independent sites. One site which takes people to other sites.
There would need to be agreed standards from go. The independent peer sites perhaps all submitting their updated keywords, links, comp links, to an agreed format and structure. The hub would be a database of that data. And to be completely cell like perhaps everyone in the guild also puts that search box on their own site as part of the agreement. Then everyone is linked to everyone else. Any ideas ?
http://cyclo.ps/
Yeah you got it..... but the difference is each independant would be responsible to host their own images themselves or through third party hosting services NOT THROUGH WELL KNOWN MICROSTOCK AGENCIES. As well each independant would be part owner and responsible to maintain and administer the hub NOT THROUGH A THIRD PARTY WEBSITE.
281
« on: October 20, 2010, 03:32 »
Is there a way for independent stock sites to work together as peers in order to drive traffic? A directory of sites would be a beginning but lists are not so useful. A hub needs to provide search across multiple independent sites. One site which takes people to other sites.
There would need to be agreed standards from go. The independent peer sites perhaps all submitting their updated keywords, links, comp links, to an agreed format and structure. The hub would be a database of that data. And to be completely cell like perhaps everyone in the guild also puts that search box on their own site as part of the agreement. Then everyone is linked to everyone else. Any ideas ?
I'd support something like this.
Thank you Whiz for showing your nice site...look what you have started now... 
Thanks Alias, I definitely like that idea. In other words...the hub would not need to carry any images, it could basically be a search engine hooked up to our sites. Search results would show thumbnails and images residing on our servers. One or two person would need to be paid to administer the hub. Quality guidelines, rules, price schemes, type of licenses and contractual terms would need to be established and accepted by all wanting his site hooked up to the hub. The buyer would have the choice to either search images from the hub or thereafter search an individual independent site.
sounds like an angency to me
But the difference is each independant would be responsible to host their images themselves or through a third party server. As well each independant would be part owner and responsible to maintain and administer the hub.
282
« on: October 20, 2010, 01:55 »
Is there a way for independent stock sites to work together as peers in order to drive traffic? A directory of sites would be a beginning but lists are not so useful. A hub needs to provide search across multiple independent sites. One site which takes people to other sites.
There would need to be agreed standards from go. The independent peer sites perhaps all submitting their updated keywords, links, comp links, to an agreed format and structure. The hub would be a database of that data. And to be completely cell like perhaps everyone in the guild also puts that search box on their own site as part of the agreement. Then everyone is linked to everyone else. Any ideas ?
I'd support something like this.
Thank you Whiz for showing your nice site...look what you have started now... Thanks Alias, I definitely like that idea. In other words...the hub would not need to carry any images, it could basically be a search engine hooked up to our sites. Search results would show thumbnails and images residing on our servers. One or two person would need to be paid to administer the hub. Quality guidelines, rules, price schemes, type of licenses and contractual terms would need to be established and accepted by all wanting his site hooked up to the hub. The buyer would have the choice to either search images from the hub or thereafter search an individual independent site.
283
« on: October 17, 2010, 04:45 »
i've been here for almost two years but just using a new account for this purpose. People and banks loan money to people that have proven track records.....but you are telling us that you went out of your way to hide your records so that you can borrow money.....give me a break will you!!!
284
« on: September 26, 2010, 13:01 »
Hi guys,
Our apologies - the team is aware and focused on fixing the issue. Thanks for your patience while we sort this out.
Best,
Scott
Product Manager
Bigstock
Thank you Scott....at least we know that you are not dead, still alive and kicking..
286
« on: September 10, 2010, 10:18 »
287
« on: September 10, 2010, 00:24 »
pseudonymous, great post, thank you for your input and welcome. Denis
288
« on: September 09, 2010, 08:44 »
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.
No, I wouldn't agree. If they didn't want certain contributors then there's lots of other things they could do about it.
This is about Istock reducing commissions for them to make even more eye-watering profits. That's why virtually EVERY contributors is losing out (if not in basic sales then from Vetta, EL's, vectors, etc), not just a select few. This is ONLY about PROFIT. It's purely about them exploiting contributors __ because they think they can.
That is right... the product are only digital files made by us. No warehouse, no packaging, no manufacturing, no transportation, no handling, no servicing...ect. Therefore the ratio of the cost of doing business versus revenue should go down as more and more files are sold not the other way around like iStock would like us to believe. As revenue is growing, there is no doubt in my mind that profit would grow exponentially keeping the same cannister system as before. In other words, the ratio of the cost of marketing, employees and offices ect... versus revenue should go down as more and more files are sold regardless of how big the business have growned. This is simple math. What they are doing by taking a bigger piece of the pie is an act of greed nothing else. And they are doing it because they have a very good chance of getting away with it. Denis
289
« on: August 31, 2010, 18:04 »
deleted
290
« on: August 27, 2010, 18:47 »
I did not get it yet.... Denis
291
« on: August 12, 2010, 12:55 »
Ratings increase the chances of your picture being viewed in any search which is ordered by rating.
An artistically and uniquely created image with high rating could be interesting to look at but not necessarily useful other then a very specific project. Hence the reason some of those images get very high views with low sales. Denis
292
« on: August 12, 2010, 12:12 »
Artistically and uniquely created images tend to get higher rating while having lower sales then the ones with lesser artistic values but useful for a wide variety of clients. Denis
293
« on: August 12, 2010, 10:28 »
I'm basing my assumption on my one image that has half the downloads of that one image. So, around $35k, probably. Or whatever it was I said before.
In my case my best image, as a non-exclusive, with 2510 downloads, has an average of .99 per download. My total downloads of all images bring it down to .93 per download. I guess the more downloads the more accurate you can be. Congradualtion on that one image sjlocke. Denis
294
« on: August 12, 2010, 10:07 »
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340. And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
This logic is flawed. I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000. I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet.
So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?
No chance. At all.
Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!
I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.
You aren't following the simple math
Try again...
Therefore, if you want to follow simple math, how about answering my original question?
My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption? Denis
Almost 10000, of which 6000 have been exclusive. So, umm, ya...whatever.
Therefore...it appears that you are probably a bit more fortunate then the rest of us. Good for you. Denis
295
« on: August 12, 2010, 09:02 »
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340. And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
This logic is flawed. I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000. I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet.
So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?
No chance. At all.
Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!
I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.
You aren't following the simple math
Try again...
Therefore, if you want to follow simple math, how about answering my original question? My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption? Denis
296
« on: August 10, 2010, 12:27 »
No noticeable change for me. Denis
297
« on: August 04, 2010, 15:30 »
error
298
« on: August 04, 2010, 15:29 »
Istock will probably have made nearly $100K from that image.
That is true. Istock is certainly highly profitable for the owner(s)
299
« on: August 04, 2010, 15:07 »
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340. And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
This logic is flawed. I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000. I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet.
So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?
No chance. At all.
My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption? Denis
300
« on: August 04, 2010, 10:45 »
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340. And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
