|
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 - cascoly
4126
« on: February 04, 2010, 16:56 »
Anyone know where i can find source code [java, asp] that reads the IPTC data?
Basically, when i present an image on a webpage, i want to also show its title, desc and keywords; no need to change anything
i've tried google searches, but all i can find are either standalone exif editors/managers, or expensive image management software toolkots that are massive overkill, so i'm looking for something basic and reasonably priced (< $30)
i'd like to avoid activex or other components that each visitor would have to explicitly set up
steve
4127
« on: February 04, 2010, 15:05 »
i HAVE noticed the wall - but as someone else pointed out, it tracks with the US-EU market day - similarly, weekends & holidays are consistently slower.
we need to get designers to have a better work ethic and to work longer hours!
s
4128
« on: January 31, 2010, 12:35 »
?? all the istock sales numbers are rounded [down?] to hundreds - eg i have 698 sales, but it displays as 600. the portfolio numbers are exact
bug or feature?
4129
« on: January 31, 2010, 12:24 »
That is until they pull them for the bowls or plates design.
.
You're joking... however... another of Getty's children (StockXpert) just shot me down on a dining room table ... they wanted a property release.  =tom
no joke -- plate designs are copyrighted, that's why most sites urge sellers to use plain colored plates usng designs on plates also reduces the range of uses if the main emphasis is the food steve
4130
« on: January 31, 2010, 12:19 »
steve Looking at your mugshot on DT, I thought you were Caesar Marcus Aurelius. 
yes, it's Marcus A - the image is from the statue on the Capitoline hill in Rome, always been one of my favorites. fwiw, i have a beard but not a horse s
4131
« on: January 31, 2010, 12:11 »
My concern about exclusivity is with cycles and copycats... My experience this past year is that most times when sales are down on one site, they are up on another. It's really kind of crazy... If I was exclusive and a site experienced a slowdown with no other site to pick up the slack, I lose revenue by putting all of my eggs in one basket. I'm sure it might be different if I had proven sellers that are fairly consistent each month, but I gotta believe that well will eventually dry up and stuff that us selling consistently now will eventually slow down and stop as the asset gets older.
the cycles aren't crazy -- it's just that most of us are tiny bubbles in the ocean of sales - with millions of images on each site, one month's sales aren't going to be definitive - and ELs will distort the monthly sales, since they're so spotty. so a running average for each site and in total gives a better picture. looked at this way, i have several sites that continue to grow, but most just stay flat this is the main reason i won't consider exclusivity
4132
« on: January 31, 2010, 12:02 »
Agreed.
some agencies do slip into the paranoia - i never consider propert releases for stock - if one agency rejects for that reason, most will still accept - even those quoted above with seemingly strict rules. i have a number of mills, plants, lumber and other industrial images that sell well - these types of images are more likely to be used for editorial purposes in any case [even if they're not specifically entered as ed] steve
4133
« on: January 31, 2010, 11:54 »
BME - for 3 of last 4 months - for me, it shows the strength of diversity - usual hi performers like DT have dropped to 4th or 5th, while dormant FT has woken up, and ELs at tiny 123 helped.
my running average tracks with the recession - big dip at end of 2008, then flat for 6 months, since then steady rise
steve
4134
« on: January 29, 2010, 20:56 »
they continue to be my 4th or 5th best seller [ss, dt usually 1 & 2]
had 4 sales today for $12 total - first time i've had more than 1 sale in a day. 3d is 5th this month, but that's because of a EL on 123 that shot them frm normal 6-8th pace to second
here are the images that sold this month
Waterfalls in narrow canyon
Horses and old wagon in field
Horses and old wagon in field
Horses and old wagon in field
Rolling green meadows and Pacific Ocean
Matthews House Stone House
Thyangboche monastery and peak of Ama Dablam
Hindu Sadhu gives blessings
steve
4135
« on: January 29, 2010, 20:47 »
@Cascoly
Yes, i will explain things better in the future so it makes more sense, but the reason i feel the results are still valid, is because even if we all vote different ways the sites will still be ranking from best to worst. Exactly what earnings rating they have doesn't mean so much but who is ahead of who means something.
ok, but that's precisely my criticism of the poll from a statistical point of view -- yes, the top place is probably the best earner for everyone, but after that you really can't say much -- the problem is the poll is ordinal [asks us to rank], but the results are then represented as numerical [shown as if they were numeric results] -- you can't average everyone's rankings since the numbers are not equivalent. that said, a true poll of rankings would be difficult to produce, since there are so many other factors that havent been included [nonrandom nature of poll, non normalized data distorts small portfolios, etc etc ] my suggestion would be to keep the poll , with explanation of how to vote, but not to show the arrows and fractions, since those are at best misleading steve
4136
« on: January 29, 2010, 20:39 »
Don't take me so seriously, Steve. My sense of humor is often misinterpreted as ignorance. 
Maybe interpreted should replace misinterpreted? 
no problem - i never take comments personally. s
4137
« on: January 29, 2010, 20:37 »
the only reason i continue to submit is it's easy -- their rejection reasons are some of the worst, and the saless are meager. so i just upl and dont even bother to read the rejection reasons anymore
steve
4138
« on: January 28, 2010, 18:32 »
@Leaf, I apoligize for starting a bash the system thread. That was not my intent.
I was fishing to see what others had to say about the rise of Cutcaster. I disagree with those who declare the data invalid. I've seen the same six or seven agencies listed as the big six for more than a year now. I think that fact alone is data validation.
Perhaps the numbers themselves are inconsistent but the results seem pretty solid for agencies listed in the top nine. I was really wondering if that could be said IF Cutcaster slips into ninth place.
I'm sure most people are offering suggestions rather than pounding the poll. I think a lot of what we mean is sometimes lost in the translation as we all attempt to use a common language.
Sorry if I caused any heartburn, Leaf.
since your reply follows mine, i guess you were referring at least in part to my comments - first, nothing in my post was bashing the system, just pointing out the statistical problems with a poll of this type. AND i've made suggestions in several other posts for how a better poll could be conducted. criticism is not bashing as for the fact that the same 6 agencies keep at the top, that does nothing to validate the poll -- it just shows that most people who vote have portfolios with these agencies.
4139
« on: January 27, 2010, 12:37 »
i've wstopped voting since the poll itslef makes little sense - there's not even an explanation of wha we're supposed to be using to vote - so some may list by sales, others by increases this month, etc. some may list in order of sales [SS gets a 9, DT gets a 8, etc, others may give votes based on % [eg,if SS is most of my sales, ss gets a 9 and all others get a 1]
the data is thus thoroughly messed up as it's entered. the bigger problem is then applying those ranking numbers to create a measurement - there's no way to know what the actual numbers mean
steve
4140
« on: January 26, 2010, 18:46 »
Also FT dislikes sensual nudity.
and genitals, even in art non-sensual images (although they claim that it's not true)
Every image with genitals visible is immediately rejected for "Moral standards"
i havent found that to be true -- several of my khajuraho images have been accepted at FT, for example http://www.fotolia.com/Member/IndexContent/19325088maybe it's the captioning? i keep the caption PG rated, but include more specific keywords
4141
« on: January 23, 2010, 21:08 »
I know for sure Fotolia doesn't like nature, flowers and food: whatever I tried the last month: no luck!
i agree, except when they do take nature, flowers and food! i've never figured them out - but they're relatively easy to submit to, and a decent earner recently. i just upload what i sbmit to SS & DT and don't worry about rejections s
4142
« on: January 19, 2010, 19:59 »
i've had good results with editorial on SS , DT and BigStock - it's annoying sometmes what's considered newsworthy, bt overall my editorial portfolios are smaller than RF but produce a greater % of sales - probably because it's not yet overloaded
re 123, it's a bit too late for me -- after their ridicuous recent reviewing i'm not going to do extra work trying to guess what they consider editorial
steve
4143
« on: January 17, 2010, 01:10 »
my portfolio shows many of my interests - adventure travel, history, cooking, skiing, duplicate bridge
i used to lead trips to india, nepal, turkey & china, but now my website is more focused on providing information and linking travelers directly with agents we've used in those countries
s
4144
« on: January 15, 2010, 02:19 »
i use 1&1 for hosting: http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=7246734 they've got a promotion going now with free hosting for 6 months! plans start at $5 per month - i have several accounts - one is MS asp the other linux -- i use this in several online games that use google maps where i run part on linux, part on MS. [the google stuff requires linux, but i didnt want to convert all my established asp db routines ]. steve
4145
« on: January 15, 2010, 02:08 »
but keywords organize just as effectively -- categories are only an efficient organizer if all images are categorized the same way.
another problem is the categories are so broad that the result is meaningless -- who's going to look at 'nature' or 'architecture' to find what they need?
i've skipped categories wherever possible - they're an enormous waste of time -- if you can submit w/o you upload and your job is done - even if it's only 1 click, there's stll the waiting time even w a fast connection
bigstock's taken a step backwards with their 'guesstimates' -- these are worthless since they do an "OR' search of the keywords, resulting in categories that need to be blanked out or changed. any suggested categories should apply to ALL the images selected.
s
4146
« on: January 15, 2010, 01:58 »
Very same experience here. I wont say images that have been accepted elsewhere. That's a meaningless comment given different review criteria. However this last batch of 20 all have sales elsewhere of 100 or more. That means buyers like them and that's the bottom line.
the fact that others accept them IS important when there are mass rejects of those same images for alleged techncal reasons s
4147
« on: January 15, 2010, 01:55 »
as others have commented i find it difficult to believe these are the only 2 choices - $1 or $1000
another question is why clients still expect they need to pay $1000 for artwork in the first place - nice for an aware designer, but it's still bloating the client's budget. sorta like the military contractors who get cost-plus contracts - no incentive to be frugal
in a global economy those wasted $ add up to a competitive disadvantage for those companies still doing things the old fashioned way
---
s
4148
« on: January 13, 2010, 18:33 »
no, they've always ben marginal, so this was enuf to decid to just leave my portfolio there as it is
s
4149
« on: January 12, 2010, 23:31 »
====i find it is just the new sites that tend to design the most complicated navigating sites . maybe all those video game nerds are getting the contracts to design these new stock sites i've been noticing this across the board lately - sites tossing out slick new websites but not bothering to beta test them thoroughly with actual users s
4150
« on: January 12, 2010, 23:26 »
One unavoidable truth about image inspecting is that there are only 2 options. Approval or rejection. Its one or the other, with very few grey areas in-between. Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to approve or reject any certain image is the strength of your previous uploads. Ie. if you have a proven track record of approvals and/or sales, the inspector will most likely be (much) more inclined to approve those borderline images when the decision to do so is more objective. So, if you have a 80-90% approval rating and an ok sales record then you will experience much fewer rejections, even if the composition or lighting of certain individual (or even series of) images is questionable.
if that's true it's sad that reviewers rely on reputation rather than actual quality of submitted images but in my case, i was getting 70-80% or more acceptance at 123 until this mass reject mode began, so by your theory i shouldnt have been affected. also it's highly reviewer dependent it seems -- an occ'l batch still gets reviewed by someone who actually judeged the images submitted
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
