|
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 - LesPalenik
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20
301
« on: February 15, 2014, 09:55 »
Thank you, Sean and Martha, that's good to know.
302
« on: February 15, 2014, 09:33 »
Thanks, Sue
I bit the bullet and bought the Kindle version of the book, so I could see also the inside pages.
Well, there was a credit notice for the image at the last page of the book, attributed to myself and Dreamstime, the selling stock agency.
However, my initial problem was that the image on the cover was displayed without the credit notice, and all Amazon visitors can see only that page, not the page with credits inside the book.
This is obviously the nature and disadvantage of the digital implementation and presentation of the ebook that was never a problem with the physical paperback. Unfortunately, Amazon and the publishers (at least in this case) ignore this issue.
So the problem still remains, the author seems to be legally covered, and I'm out of seven bucks.
303
« on: February 15, 2014, 05:18 »
I presume the image was purchased from a stock agency, so I was questioning only the absence of the credit notice. It seems that the only way to find out whether there is a proper photo credit is to purchase her book. Coincidentally, the same image was published last year also in Ontario Travel Guide 2013, and they did include both Shuterstock and my name in the left bottom corner. I think if the images are displayed in a digital publication, the photo credit should be shown right in the image (especially in book previews that do not show inside pages or page with photo credits). http://canadatravelguide.advanced-pub.com/Vizion5/viewer.aspx?issueID=1&pageID=112 In addition, I display the same scenery in panoramic format as the top image on my blogsite, so the image has been around: http://www.advantica.wordpress.com
304
« on: February 15, 2014, 02:44 »
I found on Amazon one of my images on a small travel/local interest book cover that has been published both as paperback and Kindle ebook. The cover contains the book title, my image, and smack under the image is the writer's name. As it is customary on Amazon, you can display the "Look Inside The Book" section that shows the book cover in full size (in this case without any copyright notice). I don't know if the image acknowledgment / copyright notice is included inside the book or not, but the present book cover design would imply that the image was created by the person whose name is underneath the image. Is it legal not to include imagemaker's name and copyright notice on the cover? (maybe not so important in a traditional paperback book that can contain such information inside the book, but it's a different story with an ebook and its presentation) Here is the link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Spotlight-Georgian-Cottage-Country-ebook/dp/B00AUZSA0W/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1392449770&sr=1-1&keywords=georgian+bay#reader_B00AUZSA0W
305
« on: February 13, 2014, 19:43 »
I think if you get in directly from the link, you will get a combined discount.
If anybody else buys it that way at a greater discount, please let us know, if it has worked.
Les
306
« on: February 13, 2014, 18:28 »
Great deal! It is hard to resist at that price.
Sue, did you use my link and what was your final discount?
308
« on: February 05, 2014, 08:38 »
In the current implementation of the "popular" sort order, you can get images that never sold, shown before images that were sold multiple times.
That is by any definition incorrect and deceptive information.
309
« on: February 05, 2014, 08:28 »
The problem is the choice of the words.
Most buyers would assume that "most popular" order would list the images sorted by the number of downloads.
If they make a purchase decision based on the false information, that could be a valid reason to sue the supplier for being deceptive and unethical.
310
« on: February 05, 2014, 07:54 »
Or switch to a different channel.
311
« on: February 04, 2014, 17:32 »
The thing is that if I want to buy an image I'd like to know how popular it really is. Not only views, but real download numbers.
In some cases, I'd like to buy an image that hasn't been purchased and used many times before, in other cases I may be looking for a successful and proven image. Current SS "popular" order is useless for both of those cases.
312
« on: February 04, 2014, 11:51 »
Shutterstock prefers whichever one brings them the most sales. A cynic would say - most sales at the lowest cost. That means pushing up images from newbies who are paid only 25 cents.
313
« on: February 04, 2014, 10:54 »
The issue is the "popular" search. Not who is who. Thats a TV program. Anyhow Les is right. The popular, is not even remotely close to files being popular and how do they asses popular anyway? by downloads or views? The Popular as implemented now has nothing to do with views or downloads. Well, maybe a little bit if these are new files. If they are old files even with thousands of downloads, SS tries to push them out of sight. Maybe they are well meaning, but totally misguided and dishonest with their buyers. The designation as popular is misleading and deceptive. And very sad that they can't even find a proper name for it. I can understand they they are trying to force the new files to the surface, but that order should never be called popular. Popular means most downloaded.
314
« on: February 04, 2014, 07:37 »
Now with these alternatives most here will know in advance they end up with a coronary occlusion or at best on the dole. 
Well, while some posters are destined to one of those two alternatives, I'm sure the others will pick up these concepts as inspirations for new shooting ideas.
315
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:00 »
Tests can include changes to the user experience or the relevancy of search results. If you're seeing changes, it's possible that you're seeing a test that is targeted at a small audience, or that you're seeing the results of a test that won. These tests are thoughtfully conducted and changes are never rolled out broadly without careful analysis. For contributors, this might seem confusing in isolation, but it ultimately results in more successful customers, who then generate more downloads and more royalties. As mentioned many times before, the "Popular" designation has nothing to do with popular. If you want to play with search algorithms, you can add another option to the available sort orders, and call it "flavor of the day" or as "recommended by chief cook" but calling it popular is not only incorrect, it is a deception and outright lie. As contributors, we are getting shafted when our bestselling images are hidden and as buyers, we are misled and have to wade through numerous pages just to find something decent. Furthermore it is naive to assume that if a small test yields certain results, the same results would be obtained across other portfolios if the same change is rolled out to other contributors. Each portfolio is different, each buyer wants something else, and whatever worked today may not work tomorrow. Calling the popular (or most downloaded) order popular would make the system simpler, consistent, and more honest.
316
« on: February 01, 2014, 10:15 »
So the little sites did slightly better for me, but nowhere near enough to make up for either iS or SS, DT was flat but is increasing sales as RPD falls. The question is whether the little ones are getting indeed slightly better, or whether they are just stealing some sales from iS, SS and DT.
317
« on: January 23, 2014, 20:28 »
deleted
318
« on: January 14, 2014, 00:49 »
The camera is great, the kit lens is OK in the centre, but at the wide end very poor at the edges. LR can help, but it can't fix the distortions at the wide extremes. Fortunately, with 24MP, you can chop off the edges, and still end up with a good size file.
319
« on: January 01, 2014, 23:19 »
That's a bummer. The good thing is that you don't have to carry bear bell and pepper spray when picking blueberries.
320
« on: January 01, 2014, 19:05 »
Quote from: ShadySue on Yesterday at 19:28
Quote from: marthamarks on Yesterday at 18:01
And I know that was the point you were making earlier: there may be a bias in favor of North American subjects, regardless of where the buyer happens to live.
That's my speculation and question. Could be because the NA bruins are more photogenic than the UK variety.
321
« on: December 27, 2013, 17:29 »
If someone says they are planning to triple their income they dont need a crystal ball. The key is in the word planning. If you have 10k images on 10 agencies, and you are going to add 30k more and expand to 20 agencies you can say you are planning to triple your income Quite correct! Tripling the number of images should triple the income, while doubling the number of agencies will do nothing.
322
« on: December 21, 2013, 14:53 »
You can take it even further.
I have installed my Symbiostock into a folder (subfolder) of a subdomain.
\advantica.com/stockphotos (advantica.com has been configured as a subdomain in an existing site)
As the other posters mentioned, all you need to do is to install first a separate copy of WP into that subfolder, and you are good to go.
The main disadvantage of running multiple sites and storing all kinds of images in one place is that the web traffic statistics become less transparent, since all the hits and views are lumped together.
323
« on: December 20, 2013, 11:19 »
That's a good point.
324
« on: December 18, 2013, 12:32 »
A sub from Shutterstock is way too much money for most online users
This cant be serious!... ok, lets give them everything free then.. Where will this madness end? :-/
When the desparados will see the light and quit such agencies.
325
« on: December 13, 2013, 10:46 »
Hardly ever.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
