Quote from: luissantos84 on October 27, 2010, 04:54
Hi Peter.. how many "bottom/low/weak/crappy" photographers are still waiting??

in a few days it will be 5 months

I woudn't use any of those words. Crappy ones get rejected. Around 700 people are waiting, but finally we have more contributors on board than waiting

Quote from: slobelix on October 25, 2010, 08:52
When i import files in pending folder, no thumbnails are showing. Anybody with the same problem?

The thumbnail generator was down during the weekend. It's back on so the thumbnails should be appearing soon.

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 09, 2010, 16:39
how about the queue order talked here days ago..?

I'm not going to go into that because I could write a book about why it makes a lot more sense to prioritize even though respecting the queue order seems more fair and logical at first glance. In an ideal world with an infinite number of reviewers things would be different but this is the real world and we have limited resources so we have to make difficult decisions.

Quote from: jamiet757 on October 09, 2010, 16:10
Yeah I used the support form. Are you ever going to allow me to resubmit an application, or should I just give up?

I don't recommend resubmitting the same kind of material. Snapshots of cats, ducks and flowers don't sell and you will most likely get rejected again.

Quote from: jamiet757 on October 09, 2010, 13:45
I applied to Stockfresh when they first launched, and like many of you it took months until I heard anything.
I got an email saying that my application was rejected, but that in 1 month I could feel free to apply again. That was over 4 months ago.
I have sent numerous emails to Stockfresh asking why I can't submit another application, all of which have gone unanswered. There is no way for me to submit another application, it just says my application was rejected. I don't get it, what can I do? Am I just banned from the site for life then? No opportunity of ever contributing to them, even if my images improve?

Hi James, I'm very sorry about the lack of replies. Did you use the support form to contact us? In normal circumstances you'd be able to apply again but we are so overwhelmed with applications that we simply can't revisit rejected ones.

Quote from: mtkang on October 05, 2010, 12:18
i am basically just pointing out that there is not necessary to say something like that company do blah blah..so what else we can do.
I am quite surprise it is from a mouth of CEO.

It wasn't me who brought it up. Normally I don't talk about other agencies but when people don't do their research and make false claims I think I have the right to point out the opposite. This forum is a great place to communicate and many agencies read it and even join the discussion. I'm here because we get a ton of questions and I want to assure people who have been waiting for a long time that we're working hard getting all that content online.

Quote from: mtkang on October 05, 2010, 08:06
i find it quite unprofessional to name your competitor this way. I am really surprised attitude like that can manage a successful company. I guess time is changing, old way of doing business is out-dated..

Someone implied that we're doing something wrong because other small sites (like the one mentioned) review a lot more images with a small team. I was just setting facts straight. I know how much a person can review. Also, these stats are public, I got them from Twitter. I find it funny that people can say anything about us without consequences but we're supposed to shut up because if we dare to state the facts we're unprofessional.

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 04, 2010, 20:31
Who is GLO....

Graphic Leftovers

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 04, 2010, 18:33
sorry but GLO is in fact being strict and are doing a great job.. just like in stock, ones do more other not.. sorry but this is the truth!

GLO added 6000 images last week, we added 20000. I wonder how they work faster...

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 04, 2010, 17:27
Hi Peter! There a few pretty small agencies approving and reviewing photos pretty soon with 3 or 4 persons.. I just don't understand why you aren't? Are the reviews like IS, more than 1 week? I dont get it sorry..! I am talking about GLO

No, usually reviews are done within a day and we'd like to keep it that way. If you don't get it, do the math. If 700 new contributors are trying to upload their whole portfolio at the same time with a 25 images / day quota, there's no way you're going to be able to inspect everything properly with 3 people.

Tamas, I can only tell you the same thing I told many times over. Hundreds of people are applying, we have a very small team and we don't necessarily approve contributors in order. This is to ensure fast reviews once you're in. I know it's frustrating but we really can't do any more at the moment.

We're making progress though because in the first time in SF history we have more people online (710) than waiting (650) and today we're going to hit 350,000 images.

Wow... We almost joined them 2 months ago but I thought their integration fee was too high and we decided not to... I'd be pretty mad if we did...

Quote from: arquiplay77 on September 21, 2010, 15:17
I am still waiting for the application, and for what i read i wil have to wait long.
I understant being a new site cost must be minimum, but on the other hand this should be done without giving up a good performance of the site, they are making a name and a reputation and having contributors wait for a month just to get a few images reviewed is starting with the wrong foot as i see it.
I don´t know what the solution would be besides geting more reviewers (at least temporary), maybe give preference to application process than regular reviews, Maybe let the allready established profesionals that have a massive port in all other sites get pass their images without having to review them. Maybe let pass all images from people with a high aproval percentage and only review them once in the air with the consecuence of lowering that Aproval percentage if some x nº of images don´t pass that post review... i don´t know.

We are doing most of what you have described but guess what? It's still not enough... There's just an insane amount of images coming in. We are now at 300,000! Had to order a ton of hard disks the other day. We obviously don't want to disappoint anyone, but it's not realistic to expect us to have the capacity of the biggest agencies so soon after the launch.

Quote from: ErickN on September 21, 2010, 15:01
Just had my first sale on SF.
Does anybody know what the second « Earnings » number (greyed out) in the dashboard is for ?

That's for affiliates. If it's grey you're not an affiliate yet.

There are over 600 people waiting at the moment. Let's say we let everyone in at the same time with a 25 pics / day quota which isn't too much. That's 15000 pics / day! You need to have at least 10 full time reviewers to cope with that amount of files. We just don't have that capacity yet.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2010, 18:12
Perhaps.  The "going backwards" bit, is more a comment on the assumption that creators of said "free" sites have greater ambitions than providing pro bono coding and other people's content for no charge, and that it would end up being a stepping stone to something fairly profitable for both parties.  Thus, "going backwards" to start in the first steps of IS and progress forwards.

Oh I see what you mean. It was a brave decision from the IS guys to start charging for the images, but it was a completely different world back then and it worked. I wonder if anyone could pull that off nowadays. Most likely not.

I get that but what do you mean by going backward?

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2010, 16:14

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on September 13, 2010, 16:09
Yes, that's the only site in the universe that started out as a hobby and became huge... 

More that Bruce had to start charging to cover operating costs, and here we are today.  Seems like a new "hobby" site will just end up traveling the same path.  So, why go backward?

What are you trying to say?

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2010, 15:43

Quote from: peter_stockfresh on September 13, 2010, 15:35
I just want to comment on one more thing. I have my photos on Flickr and Behance and both companies sell advertising right next to my pictures, which means they are making money off me. I don't think this is in any way different from RGB owners making some money to cover operating costs. Sites like that can become an expensive hobby if traffic starts to grow.

You mean like iStock 2002 ?

Yes, that's the only site in the universe that started out as a hobby and became huge... 

I just want to comment on one more thing. I have my photos on Flickr and Behance and both companies sell advertising right next to my pictures, which means they are making money off me. I don't think this is in any way different from RGB owners making some money to cover operating costs. Sites like that can become an expensive hobby if traffic starts to grow.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2010, 14:25
How do you control customer loss to "free"?  Does rgb screen the incoming work to make sure it is not as good as anything on its partner sites?  Where's the gain/loss line fall?

This is like the old music industry argument: free downloads killing the business... I don't think so. You should think about free content as an opportunity, not as lost revenues. Thousands of people learn about your services. You can hate free sites all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they will never go away. People will always want free stuff. There are many potential customers among them though, and I'm sure you'd rather send potential customers to your site than to the competition. The quality of work is not an issue, although there are some pretty amazing images on SXC and RGB, they don't match the pay sites and they never will.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2010, 14:14
I'd say mostly google, where IS is #1 on a search for "stock photos".  I don't see spending excessive effort to build up a base of "free" customers is a very smart move, sxc, rgb or otherwise.  If they want to "get into stock" or "see their work everywhere", they can join a payg site.  The contributor base on the micros are still an open shop, as long as you have some modicum of skill.

That's true to some extent, but a LOT of people go to SXC for free photos (which is also usually #2 on google by the way) and THEN end up on istock. No wonder all the other agencies have some sort of deal with a free site. Best advertising you can ever get.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2010, 13:49
Ah.  So the owners of "RGB" get money for pimping pay sites, while the contributors get to give their work away for free.
Nice model.

Where do your bosses get their traffic from? Ever heard of stock.xchng (among others)? People happily share their work there with others just like the RGB guys because they want to get into stock or they just enjoy seeing their work everywhere. Or is it wrong because it's a direct competition of the site you're feeding off?

Quote from: cclapper on September 13, 2010, 13:37
But I am really surprised at you, Peter. All I did was ask some questions and ask for an explanation.

I don't mind answering questions at all and I also don't mind working 12hrs+ per day just to get this thing going. What I mind is when people don't take five minutes to research something beforehand because that's how all the nasty rumors start. That having said sorry if I came across arrogant, it wasn't my intention.

Quote from: cclapper on September 13, 2010, 13:31
You need to check around a little. Currently, my images, after they reach a certain age, automatically go into the FREE section at IS.

Is there a free section on IS? I though there was only a dollar bin.