|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 58
401
« on: November 18, 2013, 17:55 »
I don't think standards for the entrance exam are any higher than for routine submissions - can anyone imagine the creators of some of the stuff getting accepted now being able to produce anything that would have got in last year. The critique forum is just port reviews now and those actually seeking help are there because they are sitting out wait time from the old regime and now suddenly have improved enough.
402
« on: November 17, 2013, 18:47 »
I particularly liked "Shutterstock should be building space ships". I've absolutely no idea what Yuri is talking about but the sentence does have nice syntax.
I assumed he meant so that he could work out how to light it in outer space.
Only the bravest ones would board a space ship built by iStock.
A space ship? You'd need bollocks like coconuts to board a moped built by Istock.
I don't give many hearts but this deserves one.
403
« on: November 17, 2013, 12:36 »
Your images are simply not stock-oriented. Nature images tend to be high in supply and low in demand and only the very best (and luckiest) will make worthwhile sales.
Isn't it surprising IS accepted all those images? What a U turn!
It's ridiculous! This is what happen when there are no upload limits and no QC. Personally, I'm sick of all these new snapshoters flooding iStock with their big portfolios full of crappy images.
My advice to any fresher: Stop flooding the site with all your snapshots!!!You are not going anywhere doing it.
What credentials does someone who is anonymous have to call someone else's images crappy? This comment is completely out of order - if you have a problem with the acceptance criteria at IS, blame it on IS, not the contributor.
404
« on: November 17, 2013, 06:29 »
Acceptance criteria are set by the sites, not the reviewers look whats happened at IS
The bar at SS is high
Great images will be accepted, poor images will be rejected, those about the level of the bar (borderline) can get apparently inconsistent reviews based on individual judgement
Mistakes happen, its a human process
Sites do NOT lose money if images are rejected as there is virtually always something equally suitable in the database.
405
« on: November 17, 2013, 06:10 »
Something like "female", in itself, probably wouldn't be used in a generic search for woman but, in combination with something else, it might be used more often than "woman", e.g. "female mechanic" as opposed to "woman mechanic".
406
« on: November 16, 2013, 11:56 »
Looks like the link has moved to the top of the page.
407
« on: November 16, 2013, 11:50 »
Don't want 42 MP images sold for a sub, don't upload at that size, simple. The TIFFs there earn a bit more on a credit sale for no extra work, otherwise a sub is a sub is a sub and no different to any max size sub sold on any site.
408
« on: November 14, 2013, 15:22 »
I'm a grumpy old b@st@rd but I have no problem with smileys. On the other hand I absolutely f@#!*ing hate "lol"
409
« on: November 13, 2013, 18:03 »
Guys, tickstock found a back-door method of seeing some sales stats approximations for another member. Suggesting that being satisfied with that information equates to being happy with the dodgy financial reporting shows a certain amount of negative bias towards him. As I understand it, the aim of this site is to exchange information, not to try to browbeat everybody into having the same point of view or to try to drive away dissenters. Tickstock may tend to approach issues from an iStock-friendly perspective, which annoys some members, but he does present a useful interpretation of various facts and point out things that others tend to overlook.
I actually agree with this. Possibly guilty of some misinterpretation of the original, unclarified post. I do have a major distrust of any computer system that displays different values for the same thing depending on where you look and, if they can't even report basic sales stats, what else can't they report accurately.
410
« on: November 12, 2013, 18:13 »
Seriously? Would you be happy with a sales reporting system that was "as close as possible"? If the numbers differ depending on where you look how can anyone have confidence in any of the reporting?
411
« on: November 12, 2013, 17:52 »
If you hover over some of those images it says >10 but when you click on them they say >40. My guess is that the images were actually uploaded in 2013 and wrongly say 2010 (or were from a Getty account and uploaded there in 2010). I think some other Getty accounts had that issue before. Maybe the hovered over number is since they were put up this time? If you compare OJO_Images images from 2011 you'll see they have many times more downloads and views than that account. Do you know for sure that they were on iStock since 2010?
So what you're saying is that, depending on where you click, you get different numbers and you are saying this in defense of IS??
412
« on: November 12, 2013, 14:12 »
They like what they like and don't like what they don't like, much the same as IS used to be and others, I'm sure, still are.
413
« on: November 12, 2013, 08:27 »
>23,000 images < 100 sales - looks like they're making a fortune
414
« on: November 10, 2013, 15:36 »
OTOH, maybe they had more bad things planned for us and put those on hold or scrapped them because they saw we had reached our limits. We won't ever know.
Like getting rid of P+ and halving our prices.. 
415
« on: November 09, 2013, 20:39 »
Definition of a portugese man-of-war 
416
« on: November 09, 2013, 16:15 »
How 'bout doing one for IS an FT for comparison purposes?
417
« on: November 09, 2013, 14:38 »
I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share. Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004. SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.
Well put. That's the core of the matter.
Doesn't SS have pretty much the same contributor base as everyone else? I'd suggest success is more down to a degree of vision and then doing things properly.
418
« on: November 09, 2013, 13:59 »
Shucks - made bronze and can't even woo-yay until the stats are fixed  (We really need a sarcastic sad smiley)
419
« on: November 09, 2013, 13:53 »
I'd guess for the same reasons many of continue to send stuff to IS / FT ...
420
« on: November 09, 2013, 06:04 »
...
In any case, it doesn't matter, because what is important is the ratio of the numbers to each other. It's probably about right to say that for indes SS generates about four times the income of DT and 2.5x that of iS, while exclusivity still seems to be slightly more profitable than independence.
In a nutshell - this is the essential point.
421
« on: November 07, 2013, 17:17 »
Nope - this time last year it wasn't very popular but was certainly #2 if not #1 in terms of revenue per image, RCs and lousy % commission notwithstanding. Is there a 3rd explanation besides utter incompetence or a strategy to move their micro business away from IS?
422
« on: November 07, 2013, 17:04 »
Suggestion - get the keywording approach right from day one. A site that actually returns relevant images from a search would have to be attractive for buyers.
423
« on: November 07, 2013, 16:52 »
Gostwyck, 4 words which makes all the difference between Shutterstock and the Dot...
They... do...NOT....care...
or.... part of the burn it to the ground strategy already mentioned. I've had to deal with performance issues in enterprise applications on a number of occasions, got the right people involved and resolved within 2 days.
424
« on: November 06, 2013, 18:17 »
The question is not specific enough. I think the poll is a fair reflection of sites with the same cross-section of contributors but not for sites with just a subset like IS exclusive, self-hosted etc (which is not to say folks aren't doing well - the average numbers are just not being dragged down by us bottom feeders)
You keep saying this but it makes absolutely no sense. The iStock exclusive number should represent iStock exclusives, why would it represent some other group (like people who can't get 250 downloads or people that aren't exclusive)? Can you tell me which group should be represented in the poll numbers that isn't being represented? The self hosted should represent people that have chosen to build their own site, how can it make sense for the poll to represent people that will not or have not made their own site? If you were to become exclusive or license images on your own site, you too would be counted. Until then it makes no sense for you to be counted. And 250 downloads on iStock or a few hours and $20 for self-hosting is not a high bar to overcome.
To put it another way, no exclusive has less than 250 downloads so why is the number skewed by not having people that haven't reached 250 downloads? The numbers aren't skewed or incorrect or not fair because people are more likely to have sold more to belong to those groups (if that's even true) it is just be a representation of the way things actually are.
Let me try and use an example that you might get. Back in the day when IS were useful, I was making 4-5 times more on SS than on IS. By your logic that would mean that SS was by far the better performing site. But, I had 20 times the number of images on SS so comparing like with like IS was actually performing better. This situation is similar, the polls in these areas is not comparing like with like.
425
« on: November 06, 2013, 17:53 »
If they don't sort out the overall site performance the stats will be irrelevant due to have nothing to report..
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
