Plus you can download the cvs file.

I'm looking forward for the public announcement where they'll thank everyone for the hard work, but sadly they must go... 
These guys don't stand a chance.

This is what I was thinking but I sincerely hope it doesn't happen, but survival has to endure growth.  I was also thinking a bit in another direction.  Could Peter have started SF with the intention to make a quick buck hoping he can sell it off to another bigger micro, like IS perhaps, once it has gained some traction? 

My top 5 is almost identical at every site

Same here.  And what's really fun is that when an image is sold on one site, "all of a sudden" it sells on 2-3 other sites the same day or the day after.

A shame that some of you got treated this way, but don't think you're safe on other sites my friends, they all have their different tactics.

I can imagine the frustration for the big IS change though, not only in forums, but search and sales too.

**^exactly^**

They will zoom at 10% for inspection

i wish the SS forums had an ignore button.  I'd go there much more often if they did.

A BIG +1

I am at 7, and I have ZERO on ignore.  As much as I might disagree with peeps, it is still very nice to read what others think.

I applied to Istock the other day and I was rejected. None of the three photos had people in them and they were more artistic shots so I'm not that surprised. I found a few pictures that I'm thinking of re-applying with. I'm looking for feedback these five pictures; which should I use as the 3 to apply with? Should i try to find other pictures? Do only one or two work? Etc. Thanks a bunch!

I put the pictures in a set on flickr so it should be easy to scroll through them:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/benjaminmorin/sets/72157629345453074/

Istock wants to see a mix of images to assess the breadth of your skills.  I did one nature shot (a very different kind of nature shot, though), one studio isolation and a model also shot in the studio.  The days of seeing what's collecting dust on your computer are over.  Istock (among other agencies) don't want their inspectors spending all of their time rejecting images.  That doesn't help grow their business.  So they are hard on the acceptance process to increase the odds that, when accepted, you will be uploading good quality imagery that will help them make money.  BTW, you only get a tiny piece of that revenue, too so you generally have to have a niche, or a rather large collection, or both.  Istock limits your weekly uploads depending on how many images you sell, so it can take years to build a big, effective port.  It's a LOT OF WORK just to make a few extra bucks a month.  I hope someone has explained that to you clearly.  It's important to know.  It seems that some peeps applying for MS think it's a quick extra buck.  In the old days, maybe.  Today, it's a very competitive business that dictates far better quality and concept than point and shoot.

Quote from: w7lwi on December 28, 2011, 18:19

I don't know what happened, but after doing very well on BS all year, come the first of December it totally died.  I mean dropped of the face of the earth.  Same images doing fine elsewhere, particularly on SS, but at BS, zero, nada, zilch.

BS has never been exciting.  I keep hoping an increase in portfolio size will increase the excitement (sales).   

Well, I started BS about 6 years ago, and I made $50 a month with 300 images.  Now I make $60 a month 5 years later with 2500 images.  I wonder if they are growing or ending up like Stockfresh.

Quote from: Mantis on March 23, 2012, 13:55

Quote from: Microbius on March 23, 2012, 10:22

Ditto, if you want to write off the agency's percentage you would have to declare the whole amount (your percentage and the agency's) as income then the agencies part as expenses.
Seems pointless and difficult/ impossible given how little info about sales we get from some agencies.  I just declare what I get.

If you did that you would claim a HUGE loss each year and in the USA the IRS would eventually (I think it's three years or thereabouts) deem your business "not a for profit" and you cant take a loss anymore.

errr... no you wouldn't because you would be declaring the whole amount paid for the image as income then subtracting, say 85% as expenses. Your profit would be the same as if you just declared your share of the price paid(?)

I am not clear then on what the OP means.  I looked at it (like you did) as a wash too, so why ask the question? So I made the assumption (probably wrongly) that the OP was asking just about writing off the agency fees to help him lower tax obligations, otherwise why post a questions like this? But you are completely right in your response and I totally agree with you.  I just was trying to figure out why the OP asked that question when, in reality, it would be a wash.  He/she may have meant something different perhaps?

Quote from: cascoly on March 23, 2012, 18:41

>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

unsupported assertion.

the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process. 

Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful

Very good post

Quote from: jm on March 23, 2012, 01:28

And the winner is... Crestock.

+1 [they seem to lack grasp of the laws of optics]

I dumped Secretionstock years ago. Waste of time in my very humble opinion.

Quote from: wut on March 22, 2012, 19:37

Quote from: cthoman on March 22, 2012, 14:39

I received it too. I guess I can fill out their survey, but is burning the place down and starting over really an option for FT?

What do you mean by that?

I didn't get the survey either. I never really get any...

I meant there was really no point to having a survey. They are never going to come anywhere near doing anything that would entice me back. They'd have to change everything. Even if they did that, I still doubt I would trust them.

That's why I didn't bother answering the survey.  My income is cut in half from their last search adjustment debacle.  I can accept some income fluctuation with best match changes, but not a ~60% cut.  Just to be fair from an income perspective, I went from around $180 a month to $70 a month.  I just felt that filling out their survey would be a waste of time and not turn the dial back to somewhere between $180 and $70.  I mentioned in another thread about my ranking going from around 1000 to like 2400 over night.  Shame.  I still upload there but it's close to last on my priority list.