|
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 - mattb
51
« on: April 24, 2007, 12:08 »
I think it must be credits. I'm at 1909 with 149 downloads. I had two EL in one week last month and that shot me up pretty good in the week ranking. I can't imagine that the all time rank would be done differently then the week ranking.
52
« on: April 24, 2007, 07:54 »
Mine is relatively low at .47, although I have a lot of pictures from my old 4mp Olympus so I'm sure I lose out on some of the higher commissions.
53
« on: April 05, 2007, 14:34 »
Surprisngly, the past three months have been my best months ever on IS.
Shutterstock on the other hand, has been steadily declining.
55
« on: April 02, 2007, 07:28 »
Best month for me ever in terms of total revenue.
iStock 30%
Fotolia 21%
ShutterStock 17%
Dreamstime 13%
StockXpert 10%
BigStock 4%
123rf 2%
56
« on: March 28, 2007, 12:08 »
Personally, I'm sticking with LO. They really are doing things differently. I'm sure Bryon knows he has an uphill battle and hence the guerrilla marketing tactics(suggestion to Bryan, I wouldn't try Cartoon Networks strategy though  ). None of the other smaller sites are taking this approach and it's probably the way they have a chance of surviving. End the end though, they will eventually have to deliver the goods. Also, a 50$ payout would also be nice, not that I'm close.
57
« on: March 27, 2007, 12:00 »
Karimala, how on earth do you find time to review that many photos, give personal responses on each, and shoot? P.S. Let me apologize in advance if you happen to get my latest submission(only a couple of images), I wanted to take one of them back but I can't. 
58
« on: March 27, 2007, 07:58 »
As boring as some of those brick walls are, some of them could be quite useful as stock. I feel for the reviewers when they have to review boring subjects that are poorly executed(I'm sure I have had a few in that category  ) but boring subjects is the name of the game. That's not to say that there aren't many many creative and very talented stock photographers, it's just that the boring subjects is what sells. Some of my best sellers are isolations of stuff. Boring to look at, boring to shoot, but they sell. Just my 2 cents...
59
« on: March 06, 2007, 17:29 »
I'm at 1 per 188 views.
Pretty sad... seeing as Fotolia is at 1 sale per 27 views.
60
« on: March 01, 2007, 12:41 »
Best month ever for me.
iStock 36%
ShutterStock 20%
Fotolia 19%
Dreamstime 9%
StockXpert 7%
BigStock 5%
61
« on: February 27, 2007, 15:00 »
I'm a little late to this thread, but I got everybody added.
I have really noticed an increase in sales since my CN finally got some members. I don't have that many ratings but I definitely get more sales from my rated images.
62
« on: February 23, 2007, 15:05 »
I'm a RAW guy myself. I really don't find it slows me down any. My standard workflow for RAW or jpg is the same. Slight levels adjustment, slight curves adjustment and sharpen. Hardly takes any time at all. Unless I screw the shot up, and then it takes a little longer to rescue it. Of course, that never happens. 
63
« on: January 18, 2007, 12:46 »
GeoPappas, You are very correct.  That's what I get for reading press releases when I didn't have any sleep the night before.
64
« on: January 17, 2007, 15:09 »
You guys missed the marketing speak... said they are the 'world's largest subscription-based stock photo agency'. All this has to mean is that they either have more images than the other subscription based sites or more subscribers.
65
« on: November 17, 2006, 13:05 »
Yep, today the counts have been getting messed up.
I had two sales yesterday disappear. Rather disappointing since I manage only a couple of sales a day.
66
« on: November 17, 2006, 13:03 »
Their email system is very slow, I had a batch approved two days after I submitted it, but the email took almost a week. Go figure. Although I much rather the emails slow then the reviews.
67
« on: November 14, 2006, 08:37 »
I've been using Firefox and just open each image in a new tab. Just edit the image and close the tab. It's a little easier. Although it's still a pain in the rear, it's just a tad less painful.
69
« on: November 02, 2006, 09:46 »
Kacper,
I wish you are correct in that ratings don't matter, and I'm sure for buyers they don't. But the search engine obviously does care whether an image has been rated or not. I have tried many a random search and have yet to come up with one that doesn't have the rated(even if poorly rated) images on the first handful of pages.
Obviously didn't read the post correctly. He was saying that ratings tend to be a result rather than a cause.
Side note: October had the most downloads and by far the most royalties (including one EL) for me. IS is my best preformer, and I haven't uploaded anywhere in 2 months.
I assume your talking about why images get rated\downloaded and which causes which. Which is not what I was talking about at all. In fact I really don't care, because I agree, just because an image is rated doesn't mean it will get downloaded. What I was referring to is how images appear in the search results. It is very obvious that rated images get a preference in the results.
70
« on: November 01, 2006, 13:15 »
Kacper,
I wish you are correct in that ratings don't matter, and I'm sure for buyers they don't. But the search engine obviously does care whether an image has been rated or not. I have tried many a random search and have yet to come up with one that doesn't have the rated(even if poorly rated) images on the first handful of pages.
71
« on: November 01, 2006, 07:57 »
Ratings definitely make a difference. My best selling image, which isn't rated, was download about once a day before the change. It hasn't been downloaded once since the change, I've updated the keywords but it is way back in the search results behind all the rated images.
72
« on: October 30, 2006, 09:03 »
I've also noticed that they are very picky when it comes to shots with isolated objects. They will pretty much reject anything if there is a touch of shadow anywhere, and I mean anywhere. They rejected one of mine that had a hint of shadow under a plate(couldn't even get it out in PS, it just wouldn't look right). Surprisingly, it was excepted everywhere else. I still like StockXpert, just have to get used to them.
73
« on: October 20, 2006, 07:13 »
I'm still waiting for my prize.
74
« on: October 19, 2006, 09:25 »
phew, sigh of relief. I did not want to go through the keyword process again. Now I just have to figure out why my most popular images don't seem to come up on the searches they normally would.
75
« on: October 19, 2006, 08:55 »
Here's what I did... I think I did it correctly(maybe). I went to the My Uploads section and clicked on the Edit File Information in the Admin Tools section. Was that not the right place to do it? Please tell me it is, even if it's not. Ignorance is bliss.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
