|
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 - spike
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 26
426
« on: September 19, 2014, 15:57 »
Maybe this is just a summary of the data from a much longer actual thesis in Turkish? I can't imagine awarding any kind of advanced degree for posting histograms of survey questions with no introduction, materials and methods or discussion. We don't know anything about who was sampled except they do not seem to be very successful since most sold fewer than 100 images in a month. I didn't look after the first few pages as I doubt it can tell us anything interesting.
Yeah, that's what I was thkinking, but OP said "full 47 pages from his thesis". Edit: come to think of it, if they are not native english speakers or proficient in english, this could mean something completely different - an excerpt of 47 full pages.
427
« on: September 19, 2014, 14:32 »
Also, what's this "I prefer taking edited photos"
HOW CAN YOU TAKE EDITED PHOTOS
my head will explode
428
« on: September 19, 2014, 14:30 »
Wow, this is really a disgrace.
14. What is the mountly average number of photos that you upload
How did this ever get published?!
Also, his questions are naive. He's asking how many images you submit monthly and the options are in tens (less than 10, 10-20, 20-30, .., 90-100, more than 100) and then later he asks about the monthly microstock income, and the options are less than 1000$, 1000$-1500$ and so on, overall in 500$+ categories.
Why would anyone upload so little, but had so much income?
This is too funny. I have to work 3x harder just to write up one of my experiments, and still I'd have a crappy salary as a post-doc. And here he is, with this 47 pages worth of crying. * world, u evil.
429
« on: September 18, 2014, 15:21 »
first there's a small bug -- if you disagree, then heart, the post ends up with a +1 when it should be a 0
but bigger issue is using 'disagree' -- I never gave negatives to posts I disagreed with (and I never vote a post up JUST because I agree with it) I vote on posts based on the actual content and how it's expressed - disagreeable speech can easily be countered with more free speech. rather the negative should be used only to chastise abusive, ad hominem, and other nastiness, which is better covered by the negative sign
I wish everybody thought like this <3 (didn't heart your comment even though I agree  )
430
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:58 »
So glad I don't submit there anymore. 
431
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:55 »
I've got a lot of images that were "added to 5 lightboxes". 5 being the important thing there.
Yeah, me too. The funny thing is, some of them have been downloaded only once. Lol. Also, there is a bug in the number of monthly downloads. The web interface and the contributor app give totally different number (the number is 2x in the contributor app).
432
« on: September 16, 2014, 07:03 »
Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images. "
if they can't afford micro images i'm sorry but there's no reason for them to stay in a business where they require stock images, simple as that, and good riddance.
pursueing cheaper options ? where ? how ? the other agencies will move in the same direction sooner or later.
web resolution ? 1024px screens are the minimum even on cheap smartphones nowadays.
Oh, stop being so melodramatic. There are lots of people who would like to pay for an image they can use, just like people want to pay $1 for a song on itunes, to be legal.
Just out of interest why do you still support DP when they pay a 3% royalty? It seems at odds with why you support Stocksy.
Yeah. In my eyes, in general, anyone who supports DP by giving them new images is on no (moral) high ground to preach to other people (who don't).
433
« on: September 15, 2014, 18:00 »
and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs. Only serious folks are in microstock now and they are fed up with screwing by agencies. ummm, how? there are several topics that istock now takes anything, even badly exposed and blurred files. and istock is not the only one (they have a dedicated topic because once upon a time they had the toughest criteria).
You snipped too tightly, basti was talking about Fotolia in that sentence, "what made big trouble to Fotolia this year - its harder and harder to earn even that $10 a month with stock and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs."
iS, as you say, takes almost everything.
oh, i see now, my bad. i should probably try to push some "technically imperfect" files to fotolia and see. but, in the end, if too much serious contributors quit, all agencies will either drop the criteria and have a steady influx of new material or people from developing countries where such income is quite lucrative will take over. but it actually depends on the buyers. if they want higher quality, the stock agencies will have to raise our royalty. if they, on the other hand, just continue buying stuff, disregarding the lower quality, nothing will change.
434
« on: September 15, 2014, 17:32 »
and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs. Only serious folks are in microstock now and they are fed up with screwing by agencies. ummm, how? there are several topics that istock now takes anything, even badly exposed and blurred files. and istock is not the only one (they have a dedicated topic because once upon a time they had the toughest criteria).
435
« on: September 14, 2014, 16:04 »
Well, I haven't invested anything in iStock, so the analogy stands (for me, at least).
You haven't uploaded your images there?
I have, but why do you consider that as investment? I haven't created anything BECAUSE they exist, and that was the implication from your analogy ( Here is a better milk-analogy: Mr. Supermarket promises the milk producer 50 cents per liter. Milk producer thinks this is a fair deal, and buys more cows.)
436
« on: September 14, 2014, 15:16 »
This bitching is like going to the supermarket, finding out that a liter of milk costs 5 euro, and then shouting "you screwed us BIG, mr. supermarket!".
You can just walk out of the store, never come back again, buy milk elsewhere and let the economy and the free market do the rest.
No. That's not the same thing. In your example the consumer has not invested anything (time, effort) to the supermarket -> Not the same thing at all.
Here is a better milk-analogy: Mr. Supermarket promises the milk producer 50 cents per liter. Milk producer thinks this is a fair deal, and buys more cows. Suddenly Mr. Supermarket says the producer can only get 20 cents per liter. And according to you, he shouldn't be mad or dissappointed.
Well, I haven't invested anything in iStock, so the analogy stands (for me, at least). My portfolio is made for agencies which bring me the majority of the income, and I can choose to contribute to iStock or not. It's not like I'm making anything BECAUSE of them. So yeah. Your analogy isn't full because there are other supermarkets who will buy your milk. So you can essentially say "if you don't want my milk at the prices that I consider fair, I will sell it to someone else, who will pay me more (fairly)". But to be mad? I still don't get it.
437
« on: September 14, 2014, 14:50 »
Thank you iStock!
a file that usually made me $4.50 to $4.90 just made me $1.50
Once again, you screwed us BIG
I don't get it.
If you don't like it, just pull out your portfolio, nobody is forcing you to contribute; it's a free market.
Edit: Yeah, downvote as much as you like, but that's the reality. Nobody owes you (us) anything. But we can shape the market because we have a choice. Stop being a victim. If you don't like it, do something instead of bitching.
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. One week you are making a certain level of income. The source controlling that income says starting next week I will be paying you less, much less, for the same effort and content. No supplier would be happy with that and many will pull their portfolio. But those relying on the income may need to keep the meager portion for awhile while they implement plan B and they are not likely to keep quiet in the interim.
It's not unlike supplying Walmart. High volume for the supplier offsets tight margins but when they start squeezing you for more it becomes unsustainable for the supplier yet to walk away creates it's own set of financial issues.
Well if you rely solely on iStock for income (especially in the last two years), then I can't say that I empathize that someone's surprised with this course of action. iStock is between 10 and 15 percent of my monthly income. And I'm glad. This bitching is like going to the supermarket, finding out that a liter of milk costs 5 euro, and then shouting "you screwed us BIG, mr. supermarket!". You can just walk out of the store, never come back again, buy milk elsewhere and let the economy and the free market do the rest. Nobody owes you anything. If they want, they can change the royalty rate to 2%. It's just a matter of supply and demand, and when there's enough (quality) supply, why would they lower their profits by paying contributors more? Because it's FAIR? Lol. Any CEO that would have that gameplan would actually never become a CEO because that's not how it works. It's like people here actually think that these companies care about us, the contributors. That's pretty naive. The best is to diversify, and when an agency doesn't comply with your standard for whatever reason, just leave. Bitching about some company screwing you is kinda childish.
438
« on: September 14, 2014, 08:46 »
Thank you iStock!
a file that usually made me $4.50 to $4.90 just made me $1.50
Once again, you screwed us BIG
I don't get it. If you don't like it, just pull out your portfolio, nobody is forcing you to contribute; it's a free market. Edit: Yeah, downvote as much as you like, but that's the reality. Nobody owes you (us) anything. But we can shape the market because we have a choice. Stop being a victim. If you don't like it, do something instead of bitching.
439
« on: September 11, 2014, 18:09 »
It sucks.
And because of the "similar" rejection reason I now have less than a quarter of photos compared to other stock sites, who happily sell them (and they all bring income).
Their loss.
Also, their submission system sucks, when is batch processing finally going to be implemented? It's 2014, not 2004.
440
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:25 »
I don't think a lot of people will reply.
Mine made the same amount in 6 months.
441
« on: August 29, 2014, 17:25 »
Bumpity-bump.
I'm not sure if I should start a new topic or just use this one.
In any case, I'm wondering, given the current affairs in microstock, how would you value your portfolio if you had an interested party.
Let's say, to make calculations simple, that your portfolio earns 20000$ per year. At what price would you sell, what would you consider fair both to you and to the buyer?
Personally, I would not sell below 60000$, because I expect the portfolio to keep bringing in money for quite some time in the future. But, I might be wrong.
What are your thoughts?
442
« on: August 17, 2014, 09:56 »
I think you need to upgrade the app to the latest version to prevent this error next time.
To fix the wrong earning number of Pond5, goto the menu page, choose "Adjust Earning" menu item, then choose Pond5, and input a number to balance out the wrong negative earning data.
It was the latest version available, so I don't think that's the problem with my issue. Does this mean that I have to manually adjust earnings after every payout?
443
« on: August 16, 2014, 08:20 »
wow
much strange
very sadness
wow
444
« on: August 16, 2014, 08:14 »
There' a bug (I guess).. I had a payout on Pond5 today and my Pond5 balance is showing a negative number.
I get that the app "calculates" how much you have earned by comparing the current balance with the balance from the last login, but in this case it doesn't give the correct number (depends on how you define correct) - the useful number. I surely didn't lose x$ with the payout... is there a way to fix this?
445
« on: August 04, 2014, 13:52 »
Thanks! For some reason, goggling didn't show this as one of the top results. Mark as solved.
446
« on: August 03, 2014, 16:34 »
Hi all, I want to outsource my iS keywording and the issue is that, to use deepmeta, one needs to have an istock account, which my collaborator does not. On this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlygeZ6_TY&list=UULagW8xVqJqGYA2Ei5EVH4w) the guy is saying that he outsourced his keywording and encrypted the password, but I'm don't really understand how it's done. Did anyone attempt this and what's the procedure? Thanks!
447
« on: June 25, 2014, 13:19 »
I have around +400% from the new subscription sales!
So, 4 bucks.
448
« on: June 25, 2014, 10:25 »
On the way to become BME, but not by a large margin. So, the summer slowdown hasn't started for me yet.
But I don't have high hopes for July or August.
449
« on: June 25, 2014, 10:21 »
Cool, thanks for the answer!
450
« on: June 24, 2014, 13:58 »
Mr Developer, I'm wondering about your motivation to build this app and then offer it for free (for realz). I mean, having in mind that you could have earned some money by choosing to make it a paid app. Is it a part of your business model, you just like building and giving apps for free, or something else (what)?
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
