|
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 - donding
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 70
401
« on: December 19, 2010, 12:26 »
Well, it looks like the EL fix is a fiasco. Some people still not paid when they were supposed to be and no emails sent out about the paid out 10% either. 
Oh boy.
Does that really surprise you??? Just like the fix about the ability to filter out Vetta/Agency being at the top of the search and they turn away and make it where you can't filter out Vetta/Agency...only standard?? It's all the same ol same ol!! 
402
« on: December 18, 2010, 10:45 »
The rumors do raise a good question: is it safe to open your own site to actually sell your own images, or do you risk getting kicked out of SS and the others? Clearly this isn't the case with FD. But have there been real cases of this happening? I am exploring setting up a site to sell my own images, but the risk of getting kicked out of the agencies for doing this is giving me serious pause.
No, there isn't any risk of getting kicked out because you sell your images from your own site. Tons of photographers do it already. The risk comes when you start inviting others to sell from one site...that's like an agency.
So if this is true, I guess it would be important to not make it look like an agency. My ideas for the site would probably give the buyer the same type of experience as an agency, with some of the same bells and whistles. It would be a professional looking site to give the buyer confidence. But if I go too far with this approach the agencies could think I'm setting up a competing site and close my accounts on their sites. Anyone else have experience with this? Heard of anyone who ran into problems doing something like this?
Many photographers sell their own photos from their own sites. What cclapper is saying that unless you recruit a bunch of photographers, then that would be a agency type site. Just selling your own photos on there wouldn't make it a competitor site. You own the copyright.
403
« on: December 17, 2010, 21:16 »
I had the same thing happen as well also it didn't upload any of the model releases. I ended up contacting customer support and explained to them what happened and ask them to move them back to unfinished section. They did and I was then able to take care of both issues. I had a batch to Dreamstime that had no title, just the file numbers and the whole batch was rejected.
I'll stick to the good old fashioned uploads which I do myself.
404
« on: December 15, 2010, 21:58 »
Mark designs his own car models.
He does one good job because those look so real. I only wish I had his talent. So the way I understand it is because they are renders, then they accept them because they are generic in a sense.
405
« on: December 15, 2010, 20:03 »
Kinda sorta looks like the new corvette to me....but I guess since it's a 3D render it's ok. Some of those look like a Mazda also.
406
« on: December 15, 2010, 19:34 »
Isn't it considered copyright infringement to use photos of cars or illustrations of a car likeness according to iStock? I just found these under the agency collection which was uploaded in 2-2009. http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8530566-sports-car.phpI'm not picking on the person, his port is full of them and extremely good in my opinion, but just wondering why it was put in Agency if this is against their policy. Is it because they are 3d render?
407
« on: December 15, 2010, 12:07 »
I think a lot of the sales volume depends on rather you have a lot of Christmas stuff on there. Also size of port as well as rather you are exclusive and in Vetta.
408
« on: December 15, 2010, 11:55 »
MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL
If it's so bad why not give up exclusivity and joinn all the other sites out there? Everyone here is always saying how much better than IS they are.
earnings, ease of upload.
are you saying that because my earnings are good I have to put up with crap?
I personally can not understand why they feel you are not as important as a buyer just because you are also a contributor. You basically are contributing at both ends which I would think they would welcome. As I have said before I believe they have to lay the blame for their mistakes on the shoulders of the contributors, which is really sad because if not for all of us contributors they would not exist.
409
« on: December 14, 2010, 21:02 »
But the Vetta only filter has been in advanced search since the start of Vetta. I don't much mind about that migrating to somewhere easier to see as it should avoid buyers leaving that checked inadvertently.
Any buyer who wants to look only at Agency & Vetta should be able to do so - and they probably won't be all that interested in the rest of the collection anyway. Selecting only the dollar bin has been possible for ages too, so I'd like to see that added to the collections choices once they finish coding this stuff.
The biggie is separating out exclusive from independent in the main collection - that's the one that caused all the fuss when exclusive prices went up and exclusives were concerned they'd be at a disadvantage. I don't expect that to happen even if IS allows Vetta & Agency to be excluded again. Given the massive price difference between those and the other stuff, I honestly don't think they have a choice. Buyers will eventually make them see sense on that one.
Thanks for explaining that. It just always seems one fix is fixing this problem that is caused by this fix that was created to fix the other fix for the first fix. I need a fix to figure it all out... 
410
« on: December 14, 2010, 20:21 »
Ummm....wasn't the issue with the fact that they couldn't filter out the Vetta/Agency collection so they wouldn't have to dig to find the cheeper images??
The way it is they can filter out the cheeper images but not the Vetta/Agency. So basically what they did was not address the problem of filtering out the Vetta/Agency
411
« on: December 14, 2010, 19:55 »
I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.
I believe the implication is that being a disgruntled contributor might color her impressions as a buyer. Personally, I don't think that invalidates the buyer's opinion at all. But I believe that is the thinking behind bringing it up.
Edited to change his/her to her. Guess it's safe to assume Lizzielou is a woman 
I see the point now. It's being found guilty before innocent. It's their way of justifying the actions of the buyer so it appears the real reason is because they are also a contributor. I guess I could see the reasoning behind that, but when their are many other buyer saying basically the same thing, it really doesn't justify the attitude.
412
« on: December 14, 2010, 19:12 »
Are you an iStock employee, Sean? I thought it was just an agency representing you.
Lobo's response was unforgivably rude. Instead of addressing the issue he just chose to insult the customer on what appears to be a false premise. Even if he was right about the dual account, that is not relevant to the complaint.
I'm not commenting on the response. I just saying I understand the rationale behind being concerned about that.
I don't. So can you please explain?
+1 I don't see what difference it makes rather the buyer was also a contributor. If he's looking for a image and has a budget in mind...he's not going to be looking for his image but someone else s at the price within his budget. If he wanted to use his own it could be free. He's venting as a buyer, not a contributor.
413
« on: December 14, 2010, 18:58 »
I think iStock is kinda shooting their selves in the foot over all this. It's bad enough that they have twice (as far as we know) insulted a buyer like that and they turn around and insult them as an exclusive contributor as well. It shouldn't make a difference rather you are a buyer and seller. No where does it say it's illegal to do both on that site. That contributor may have a small port but could be a big buyer. The way they make it sound is like they are criminals and are being charged for treason. How stupid is that?? Personally if that was me I would be hitting the door on both ends...buyer as well as seller. It looks like they are trying to make all the negativity lye solely on the contributors, even if it is coming from a buyer. I really hope there are a lot of their buyers reading those posts and realize what is really going on there. It's so bizarre.
414
« on: December 12, 2010, 20:30 »
on the flip side, imagine if you had to pay out of pocket for the police, fire, roads, food safety testing, military, schools, etc. etc. I am sure we each have a lot of things we'd like to avoid paying for, but on the whole there are a lot of things the govt. should do, and even some of them it does a better job than the private sector would.
The financing for most public service agencies as is the same for road and bridges usually comes from city and county taxes. Texas doesn't have a state income tax, therefore their highways were supposedly suppose to be funded by the cigarette tax of a $1.00 per pack....well last I heard they were short of their target (wonder why??? to much for cigarettes so everyone quit...) so that's where toll roads come in. Property taxes...for example...on a $200,000.00 home in Collin County Texas is $4500.00 a year....versus property tax in Alabama on a $300,000.00 home is around $1200.00 a year. There are hidden taxes everywhere in the US.
415
« on: December 12, 2010, 19:41 »
No! Commas do nothing and never will. They take up space and make it so you have less room for more good keywords, but I'll give up on that one too.
I know the commas don't work. I started uploading to Alamy back in 2006. I only had 60+ pictures on there and I sorta forgot about it. Those early pictures had comma's in the keywords. They were horrible pictures to I might add....  I didn't know any different back then which is probably why I never had any sales (or because they were horrible pictures) and quit uploading. Didn't they have a different system back then???...I don't remember it having the three field forms for keywords.
416
« on: December 12, 2010, 19:32 »
I don't know if they have potential, but I don't believe they are in high demand anyway. Some may be used as backgrounds. However, to be approved in any site you must show more variety.
I agree with madelaide....I don't know rather they would sell or not, but most of the stock sites need a variety for the initial inspections...such as a isolation, people shot or landscape ect. They usually won't approve the application unless you can show variety of styles.
417
« on: December 11, 2010, 22:35 »
ShadySue - re your "I'm quite cokka with Alamy today, as I got a sale yesterday for $500/$300 to me, so I'm just holding my breath until it clears."
Congratulations on big sale, ShadySue sooo exciting!
It's really nerve-wracking, as I keep hearing about sales that don't go through on Alamy, though I've been lucky so far with my smaller value sales.
Heh I'm jealous...all I got yesterday was a novel use sale!! Any way congratulations.... 
418
« on: December 10, 2010, 17:55 »
iStock will be catering to the big guys that have deep pockets.
Meaning bigger discounts and less money on our end.
419
« on: December 10, 2010, 15:56 »
I'm a bit behind on the iStock postings. Are they making another announcement on Monday or is this about an announcement in the past? If it's coming up this Monday...you'd better take the weekend off to enjoy your final days of freedom!!
The meat is unhelpfully buried in the middle of the thread, but here's a part that's talking about what's coming Monday Dec 13th. Earlier in the thread they said it was something for contributors.
It looks like it may have something with F5 because of the reference to it at the end of his post.
420
« on: December 10, 2010, 15:41 »
Gostwyck's always blunt, but if you bowdlerize the language, the content's generally solid.
I have a very hard time dealing with the multitude of "thank you's" when long overdue bugs get fixed. And at this point, any mention of news for contributors on Monday has me clenching every muscle in anticipation of another round of bad news. They thought the partner program was good news. Then they pitched September 7th as good news for most contributors. Their ideas about good news and mine don't line up.
I honestly feel that my exclusive status is in the intensive care unit on life support and I just read that the gang that put me there is coming for a friendly visit on Monday
And I like having a place it's OK to say that without being told I'm a ball buster and having my posts deleted (both of which happened on IS forums).
I'm a bit behind on the iStock postings. Are they making another announcement on Monday or is this about an announcement in the past? If it's coming up this Monday...you'd better take the weekend off to enjoy your final days of freedom!!
421
« on: December 10, 2010, 15:19 »
Thanks racephoto....I just spent the last three hours going through the 191 images I got on there so far, making sure the keywords were in order to the relevance of the photo. Some of the real old photos that were on there had comma's between each keywords and had the old traditional...."photo photogragh color colour landscape horizontal stock" keywords. Had to remove all those. Took awhile. Now I'm ready when the next 223 are approved...
422
« on: December 09, 2010, 11:49 »
I'm going to have to query every time they reject something that I think is going to sell or its going to cost me money in the long term.
Pointless exercise, it just goes back to the original reviewer.
That is so true...those reviewers usually defend their decisions.
Almost all of my sales at FT are by 10AM so I think they definitely sell more in Europe.
I dropped Fotolia quite awhile ago and that being because they were always at the bottom for me. I really think it depends are where you photograph as to your success there. Europe isn't my place.
423
« on: December 09, 2010, 11:36 »
Interesting point, dirkr. Almost two years I considered 123rf one of the best and loyal stock sites but recently I began to doubt this fact more and more. And yes, lately they took weird decisions (in my opinion), setting a new minimum resolution for images (first 8mp and then lowered to 6mp which indeed is a little high considering other major stock sites accepting 2 or 3 mp) and switching their forum to Facebook. I wonder how many active users on the 123rf forum are still active on FB discussions.
But anyway, like dirkr said, it's your business..
LE: I just checked the discussions on Facebook, seems that nobody is active.
The facebook concern by many contributors here has been raised here before and has fallen on deaf ears. Many people don't join facebook simply because of the security issues. Watch the news and that would explain why. I don't understand why they insist on making facebook their forum. No one wants their private information put out there for all to see. In my opinion they should respect their contributors concerns.
424
« on: December 09, 2010, 11:18 »
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
I noticed that but didn't give it much thought. I think there is someway to link all those sites to you main site. If you notice you put in a similar domain name...it will take you to the main site with the correct domain...not the one you typed in. I don't know how it is done but it can be done and I don't know if all those domain names would have to be maintained or just links put in them. The key word there is "natural "type-in"
you don't have to link anything, the same thing can run on several domain names. domain name =/= place of hosting.
Thanks for the explanation. I knew there was some way to do it but didn't know how.
425
« on: December 09, 2010, 11:09 »
Here's what stands out for me, that hasn't been discussed here yet.
"Over the past few years, we have also acquired several hundred generic domains to capture natural "type-in" traffic. "
I noticed that but didn't give it much thought. I think there is someway to link all those sites to you main site. If you notice you put in a similar domain name...it will take you to the main site with the correct domain...not the one you typed in. I don't know how it is done but it can be done and I don't know if all those domain names would have to be maintained or just links put in them. The key word there is "natural "type-in"
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
