Thats odd. I thought you were talking about your own download page issues.

Your the only one who didn't get the download apparently. Please send me an email leo[at]symbiostock.com and I'll give you the packages.

No, he's not.

I was able to download from the web page with my "receipt" but I was waiting for an e-mail with download links or some such and don't have any (purchase was 3 hours ago). I did check my spam folder and there's nothing there. I did get the PayPal confirmation for the payment but nothing else from Symbiostock

There's a warning - perhaps it's a bug in 2.6.0? And perhaps that's why nothing is updating even when I check those boxes?

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home5/digitdt6/public_html/blog/wp-content/themes/symbiostock/inc/classes/network-manager/network-manager.php on line 1039

I'll try and figure out where the bug reporting thread is...

Quote from: jsnover on August 27, 2013, 14:42

A note for Leo on the premium upgrade. I changed the watermark on three files I uploaded. The dialog that said what had been processed was always one image behind - it was doing the right processing, but giving me the title and other info about the previous image.

Also, I'd love to have an option for "all" images to get watermarks redone in addition to searching for specific images to reprocess (which means I'm doing it category by category). If at some later point I just want to change the watermark for everything, it'd be nice to do that with one command vs. many.

So you want a "apply to all" option? Thats no problem and I can probably have it done this week. Depending on your host though it might stop you after 30 seconds or so.

From a user point of view I thought that would be useful. I have Bluehost and if they might not allow all at once, it'd be nice if Symbiostock could do all with one command from me but in batches of 30 (or whatever might keep the hosting company happy).

I know this is an old thread, but I can't find anywhere to change the logo on the image page (the one a buyer will purchase from) from the small square symbiostock ladybug logo to my logo. I have the image but can only see on the Symbiostock settings tab, entries for the main header, login page, watermark and PayPal page.

Same question for the avatar image - where do I enter my image file info for that?

I deleted the Symbiostock theme and then tried again to install the zip file for the upgrade (ss-professional.zip). I got the same error about the missing style.css file

Then it dawned on me that perhaps I had to install the symbiostock.zip that came with the upgrade first, then the ss-professional.zip. I was able to install the base zip file but then the ss-professional still failed.

It would really help if you had some detailed directions for what needs to be done after purchase - nothing said to delete the old theme first (perhaps that's standard WordPress stuff, but I know just enough to be dangerous). What needs to be done and in what order to get the upgraded package working. Even a couple of notes on the purchase receipt would be good

I am just starting to put a site together. Would I be better off building a site and uploading images using the free package and then installing this upgrade, or would it be easy/easier/less duplication of effort to install this package and then start uploading my images?

The bulk edits and better search sound like big wins and as I haven't started uploading yet, my options are completely open

It's a lame implementation of a marketing initiative - drop the price on the stuff available everywhere else and make the pseudo-exclusive items look hand-picked and special. The fact that they slapped Editor's Pick on Clerkenwell's (now OJO) entire 25K import shows that it's neither hand picked nor special.

Descriptions matter more for images of places (not all of which are editorial) and some of wildlife or plants/trees. Putting them underneath their "similar" images is a disservice to buyers.

I have so few images left there I don't care, but I had spent a bunch of time organizing lightboxes of related (if not similar) images in ways I thought was helpful to buyers and thus to me (in terms of increased sales). No one will ever spend ten seconds doing anything like that any more in the current set up given where it's placed.

On top of which the new page design is butt ugly.

Fail, IMO

I looked through the examples on stipple.com and didn't see anything that I thought was exciting. It seemed that those with blogs and facebook pages might lard an image with references to their services or products - something they might find interesting - but nothing that made the buyer/client's experience any better, simpler or more useful.

I thought of the stuff the Daily Mail does on its web site where they put rollovers over images with links to where you can buy the clothes (should that sort of thing interest you). I think advertisers are looking for new ways to flog their stuff, but some are destined to be short lived when they're more annoying than useful. I found those images with lots of overlapping popups really clumsy to navigate (assuming I was interested in doing so).

What is really puzzling about the Getty link is that the licenses for editorial images exclude use for commercial purposes. Isn't sticking a stipple placed link into an editorial image using the image for commercial purposes?

A while back 123rf said that 40 cents per credit was the minimum price for royalty calculations. At 45%, that's 18 cents per credti

Quote from: jsnover on August 05, 2013, 11:18

I can't get to shutterstock either, but downforeveryoneorjustme says that it's just me - that shutterstock.com is up. Not sure what to make of that.

shutterstock.com is the buyer side, submit.shutterstock.com is contrib side.

I'm well aware of that.

I meant shutterstock.com - although I do care about the contributor side, I'm more concerned when the buyer side isn't up.

However they're now up for me

This is the sort of thing agencies should be all over, but they just don't seem to care. Huffington Post is built on linking to stuff they didn't create though, so I guess offending yet one more group of creators - and not even bothering to correctly credit who they "borrowed" the image from isn't much of a surprise.

Really shoddy behavior on their part.

What about levels with this new pricing - is it (as with subs in general now) a level-independent price? I looked at the forum thread and didn't see any info on that.

I wonder if those who wish to purchase higher level images will be motivated to switch to the new image packs? At $6.90 per image (10 image pack) or $8 (5 pack), paying $22.16 for a max resolution level 5 image (using the smallest 30 credit purchase for a 19 credit item) or even $15.08 for a maximum level 2 image looks like a bad deal.

So instead of making $4.52 royalty (30%) on a level 2 maximum size image (using the 30 credit pack price) I'd get $2. And for the level 5 maximum image, I'd make $2 instead of $9.97 (45%)

I'm not a fan of the level system and the horrendous complexity it introduced - seemed to me to be a short term win and not a long term play. However part of the way to "sell" contributors on subs was that it boosted the level of your images for credit sales, something that I think will be eroded by this new pricing option. We already lost the 70 cent subscription royalties a while ago.

I think they'd do better to scrap the whole level system and perhaps replace it with something simpler - two levels if not flat pricing. Otherwise, it seems that the level system only serves to drive up usage of subscriptions, and given the volume of subscriptions at DT, it isn't high enough for us to make any real money, so it's a big lose for contributors.