|
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 - fotografer
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 110
326
« on: June 05, 2013, 03:22 »
hmm, thanks for checking. Annoying having new images there that I can't make available for sale!
I've just been and checked and I can put my approved images through with no problem.
327
« on: June 04, 2013, 10:54 »
Mantis
To each his own. The free image has no views or dl's. Maybe the free image had nothing to do with the 2 sales. But coming from no sales to a start of 2 sale - makes you wonder. With only 9 images online at the moment what else could it be?
You can't come to any conclusions based on 2 sales. If you gave away images and your sales went from 200 a week to 400 a week you might be on to something but 2 sales are just random and the images could have been found for any reason
328
« on: June 04, 2013, 03:49 »
I basically have all the gear I want and need, and am a contributor on most agencies. However aside from food and general objects on white I find it hard to come up with ideas for stock photos.
Do any of you have any methods or tips or activities that may assist me in coming up with ideas?
Like looking at other stock photos and generating a unique variation? Something that provides results, because it's becoming frustrating!
Finding things that will sell is the hard bit and the also the thing that people are least likely to help you with. Look at adverts, magazines etc and see what is being used.
329
« on: June 01, 2013, 18:59 »
They said that they would be lowering upload limits from june 1st but mine still shows 1000 a day. I don't think that anybody needs more than that 
330
« on: June 01, 2013, 14:06 »
good month for me as well! I am just afraid if Shutter were to fade most of us would be in deep trouble since we have such a high percentage of our overall income from them...
No we wouldn't if the SS buyers moved to somewhere that pays us better commissions which is most places.
331
« on: May 31, 2013, 12:42 »
I'm quite happy to pay the yearly voluntary fee as I think that Tyler deserves something back for his hard work but I'm really not keen on the idea of being forced to pay a monthly fee just to keep anonomity.
332
« on: May 31, 2013, 12:14 »
Luis, sorry, I forgot that sarcasm and irony are ways that do not transfer well to the written language.
Try reading my post as a way how not to destroy Shutterstock when you do not follow the steps outlined.
I read it as you thought that was IS's plan not what you wanted to happen.
333
« on: May 31, 2013, 09:01 »
Dare anyone say that their marketing ploy and price strategy for 2013 is working........... 
Their marketing ploy and price strategy for 2013 is working.
I was one of the lucky ones that stayed at 50% and I have noticed an increase in the amount of dls and earnings since the change.
omg, some positive feedback on the MSG forums!! good to see.
might push them up a little further on my upload list.
Well, especially if the rise in sales could have been caused by reduced pricing (especially coming from a reduction in commission), IT IS A HIGH RISK STATEMENT!!!!
It could be that the people who do well there are selling even more, and the ones who never did well there are selling less and less. Those who do well probably saw a rise up to Level 6, so the increase in commission coupled with an increase in downloads is leading to a very nice rise in earnings. I know this is my case, and I'm betting it's true for a number of others.
I was one of the lucky ones that stayed at 50% and I have noticed an increase in the amount of dls and earnings since the changes.
334
« on: May 31, 2013, 05:17 »
The faved feature is supposed to favour the search position of the faved images so I'm sure it must help. Don't know about the donate as I don't intend using it.
335
« on: May 31, 2013, 05:15 »
Ok I'll take that Actually as far as giving pluses or minuses go we are all anonymous
I would think that leaf can see all..... 
Yes I believe he can at least I hope so.
336
« on: May 31, 2013, 05:02 »
337
« on: May 31, 2013, 04:53 »
(lot of kiss @sses......) 
Well none of the anonymous people are kiss A***s as being anonymous takes away the whole point of kissing A**
338
« on: May 30, 2013, 16:58 »
I am there for less than a year but they only make me about 8% of what I earn at Shutterstock and are at nr. 4 for me. Would like to know what your percentage is for them compared to SS. I even have 100 more images there than at SS.
For me they make about a sixth or SS, and about a third of what they do at the other top sites DT, Fot and IS.
339
« on: May 30, 2013, 16:31 »
They have increased a lot for me as well and are now clear winners of the middle tier but still have a long way to go to make top tier for me.
340
« on: May 30, 2013, 15:26 »
Or, people might go to the port and discover that the poster is probably guilty of a certain degree of exaggeration. If I wanted to copycat Id look at most popular, best selling etc not follow up someone trying to big himself up for whatever reason.
Never quite understood the point of bigging yourself up if nobody knows who you are anyway
341
« on: May 30, 2013, 03:07 »
I'm wondering if many people here have a anonymous and a named account. If so by doing this it might actually increase the percentage of anonymous accounts if they decide to keep that one and ditch the named account.
342
« on: May 30, 2013, 03:06 »
I'm not sure that anonymity would have prevented these things from happening. Most of the people on here aren't really all that anonymous. If an agency is out for your blood because of something you did or are doing, they are probably going to find you and punish you regardless.
I think the difference is that they can't be 100% who it is most of the time and don't think that they would go banning anybody unless they were totally sure that they have the right person.
343
« on: May 29, 2013, 19:16 »
We don't even need a checkbox: The people that don't want to see posts by anonymous members can just hide all posts from them. That's what I do with trolls when they get really annoying.
344
« on: May 29, 2013, 18:02 »
A few common themes here:
The "anti" folks are great at adding minuses
Nobody knows who is giving the minuses so why would that make any difference if people are anonymous or not?
345
« on: May 29, 2013, 14:35 »
How about just enforcing these rules on suspected trolls. Or just delete trolls as soon as they start trolling rather than leaving them so long before deleting.
346
« on: May 29, 2013, 09:40 »
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time. If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.
I'm still in the brainstorming stage so nothing is set in stone and I'm open to suggestions if anyone has a brainy idea.
Everyone would be given a little warning (perhaps a week or so) but nobody's name would be published without their consent. If I did decide to go with the 'showing names' route, it would be published from a new field on your profile - which means currently it is blank for everyone and it would be impossible to publish anything without someone manually typing it in first. For those who never fill anything in, their profile would still be active, they just wouldn't be able to post until they filled in their required info.
For the payment upgrade of hidden identities - I don't really know how it will work. I wouldn't have a problem including it as a premium membership feature.. but I'd have to see.. perhaps it would be separate. It surely isn't meant to be a 'money grab'. If nobody paid for the 'hidden identity' I'd be quite happy. It is simply meant as a slight deterrent for those who really feel it is important to be hidden but still want to participate in the discussion.
To confirm identities.. there are lots of ways to work around this problem. A site mail could be sent on MSG saying you just liked image X on dreamstime, or some othersite activity. I'm just trying to avoid someone giving a bogus portfolio as a link.
Great, that all sounds perfect then.
347
« on: May 29, 2013, 07:43 »
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time. If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.
348
« on: May 25, 2013, 04:45 »
Any tips?
Upload a couple of hundred more
349
« on: May 25, 2013, 04:42 »
I have sent a message to Dreamstime:
Attn.: Dreamstime HR.
Please note that a Dreamstime representative, Achilles, acts very improfessionally at the MSG forum.
+ a link to this thread.
Achilles is Serban and he owns DT.
350
« on: May 24, 2013, 04:29 »
Yes they certainly know how to re-pay honest and hard work dont they? the wonderful thing about a search is that the actual sort can be skewed so that it only benefits the agency, any agency but not the contributor.
However they skew the search some contributors benefit. For everybody that loses a sale somebody else gains one.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 110
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
