|
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 - anonymous
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20
351
« on: April 18, 2008, 07:18 »
"Since a year or so, maybe two only champagne produced according to stipulated rules in the champagne region with the champagne grape, can hold the name champagne. Every other botlle of champagne produced outside the champagne region is in violation when it holds the name champagne.
Actually, the name champagne has been trademarked by the french goverment."I've got a great WWII French rifle...only dropped once 
352
« on: April 15, 2008, 23:06 »
did i say i want to be a dentist?  dan...what floats? 
353
« on: April 15, 2008, 23:04 »
i just posted in their forums without response from support. really hate it when a lot of my best sales from other agencies are rejected with that reason. i guess i posted too much similar subjects at one time.
with StockXpert, i only post 1 - 2 images per batch and have had a significantly higher acceptance %
354
« on: April 15, 2008, 22:58 »
Though I'm sad to see them go, I can't say that I'm surprised. It seemed like a very nice company, with its heart in the right place.
Best of luck in the future, Bryan and company!
with sharp...i jumped ship a long time ago as (i felt) this was a sinking ship, but, Bryan and crew were always responsive to the contributors and clients alike. best of luck to the survivors 
355
« on: April 15, 2008, 17:10 »
For those experiencing weird rejections on Fotolia as of late, today, I sold 8 images (all from one shoot) to the same buyer. 2 days ago, I had uploaded 4 more from the same shoot (different angles etc...) to have them declined today as "not stock". The 8 that sold were uploaded prior to the string of Atilla-PMS rejections.
Conclusion: The new reviewer(s) obviously don't know stock. That being said, I'm quite happy that the bulk of my portfolio was uploaded prior to Fotolia hiring their new reviewers from the McDonald's drive thru. Good luck to the new folks who have to endure...
MIZ...Where do I order my Rejection Crying Towels (need 4)?
356
« on: April 15, 2008, 07:16 »
I want to be a dentist!
357
« on: April 15, 2008, 07:13 »
As a designer, I've purchased from over 10 of the sites supported here. As a photog, I upload to all 10 of those (and a couple of others). I have my favorites but have received payouts from all of them, so I continue to upload. When it only takes the press of a computer key and pays additional $, why not...nothing ventured nothing gained.
P.S. I know I'm not the stereo typical "designer". As a contributor, I know that the same shots are not on all of the sites, so I'll take the time to look at other micros to find the "right" image...another reason to contibute to other sites (that "rejected" image from Fotolia may be EXACTLY the one I'm looking for). I also know designers who purchase a subscriptions at one site and never leave.
358
« on: April 12, 2008, 10:13 »
I had 8 of 9 refused for the "Fotolia sells photos to use in brochures and magazines...yours is not stock..." reason. Prior I haven't had any problems (97% acceptance). But they're still in my top 3 best agencies so I have no plans on stopping uploads. Try uploading at a different time of day when another reviewer is at the helm...Atilla must sleep SOMETIME. 
359
« on: April 12, 2008, 10:08 »
I've had a few of these. It is usually as a result of the strobe being pointed too directly at the subject, creating shadows in the background (my fault, I know). But after Photoshopping the shadows out and re-submitting, most were accepted. Hope this helps...
360
« on: April 08, 2008, 10:26 »
have they mentioned when they will formally go live?
361
« on: April 07, 2008, 09:01 »
well I personally am too self centered to "get over myself"
362
« on: April 04, 2008, 15:16 »
ditto...it seems that the European firms are comfortable and happy dealing with them.
363
« on: April 02, 2008, 11:58 »
I don't think the age of a reviewer is as important as their objectivity ...
that's fine if they're old enough to have "developed" objectivity, however, I've yet to meet a 15 year old with that level of maturity. MP now allows you to "block" as many spammers as you want. Anyone who delivered me "1's" on shots that have had nothing but 8's and 9's were "blocked" today and I was kind enough to deliver a couple of slams on their photos (kiss). As it's been said by so many others before, if it's not good enough to give at least a 5, move on...
364
« on: April 02, 2008, 08:54 »
I'll answer in the form of a question. What do these three people have in common? Betty Crocker, Sherlock Holmes and Judge Ross? And they all have many things in common!
inability to know good photography?
365
« on: April 02, 2008, 08:39 »
I love the voting system.
Its fun when 15 year old photographers get a chance to judge others work.
15 years old photographers are even more arrogant than usually.
if you're not old enough to drive, i don't want your opinion : )
366
« on: March 31, 2008, 08:48 »
well then for god sake, PAY the man and maybe he'll do a better job
367
« on: March 30, 2008, 19:27 »
Let's all not be too precious.
heh...I'm sure I'm losing something in translation
368
« on: March 30, 2008, 17:07 »
your ability to "block" other users is limited. I was only able to block 1 spam-tard and then the feature is no longer available. And i agree with Hatman, i NEVER give a poor rating unless I'm forced to in retaliation to a barrage of 1's. MP is progressing down the "Shutterpoint path" exactly as I predicted 3 months ago and shall continue as long as the rating/comment system is in place. And another interesting thing is, EVERY "1" rating that I've received was given by people in ONE country (i won't say which one because i don't want to start a war but it's pretty cold there most of the time )
369
« on: March 29, 2008, 09:52 »
For what it's worth to you, I'd be glad to rate your images (honestly and fairly..
I appreciate your kindness but I'm not looking for the "ratings", just the "sales". Thank you though. What pi$$es me off about the whole thing is that the result of the spam-tard hitting my image with a "1", took it out of the number "1" result for the search term and dropped it 7 positions. It's just simply a horrible method of determining search results.
370
« on: March 29, 2008, 00:51 »
.....perhaps it would be better to only allow the buyers to vote or just base it on sales.
What an incredible concept! Perhaps they will give this idea serious consideration.
wonderful concept but unlikely to happen as they defend their "voting system" ad-nauseum. I DO like the site but the annoyances with the pep-rally popularity is really wearing on my nerves.
371
« on: March 29, 2008, 00:35 »
slow, reliable, but an increase in "credit" sales the last week
372
« on: March 29, 2008, 00:33 »
kicking the dead horse ONE*MORE*TIME before i delete my stuff.....
A$$-Tard hitting my work with "1's"...lowered my rating, which lowers my visibility. I went and a$$ slammed ALL of his images (amazingly didn't hurt his ratings as everyone else he's "bashed" has hit him back too)...just stirring up bad blood and showing the sincere lack of pro intentions of the site....you guys (Mostvotos) better wake up or your gonna go down the turdhole with a mighty flush and a lack of valid contributors.I know, I know, "ratings only make up a small part of the "MPI", but they make up a massive annoying part of the caring photog's time (still no sales, just wasted time "voting" to try and be visible...obviously not working)...
One more time and I'm out
373
« on: March 27, 2008, 22:26 »
i uploaded without issue today.
374
« on: March 24, 2008, 18:27 »
perhaps a browser issue?
375
« on: March 21, 2008, 20:51 »
I average 2 DL per day (this month) at 0.50 - 2.00. A trusty dog indeed.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
