|
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 - HalfFull
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24
526
« on: October 26, 2016, 03:15 »
refunds and no payment for last month!
First they make it impossible to delete images months a go.
Than refunds, no payment and 0.2$ commisions.
Why only ever be victim? Lets fight back.
Suggestions:
1. Flood there support and socialmedia with requests.
2. If possible delete account.
3. Make them invisible by clicking away there adwords advertisement on google (they have to pay for every click and if there budget ends there advertisement is away).
We are many this is our advantage.
Lets give Getty a 24/7 "contributor service" around the planet.
Haha.... like it. Even if it doesn't stop from showing up, you could rack up a massive advertising bill for them...... more than the money they are saving by skimping on our commission if everyone does this.
527
« on: October 26, 2016, 00:54 »
I don't necessarily think other agencies will rush to adopt this approach as they don't have "Exclusives" to safeguard their supply of new work..... and they'll see plenty of people (like myself) deleting their ports at iStock. It would be a massive risk.
528
« on: October 19, 2016, 13:00 »
I am submitting to SS since 2008, and the only thing I see is growth. As long as I remember, SS was one of the agencies people criticize the most, but somehow they always hold a place of a bestseller. I didn't upload a single photo from 2010 to 2016 and my sales almost didn't drop at all. So, I believe they know what they are doing and I don't see them losing a battle anytime soon.
Regarding website problems, it happens, it's nothing unusual.
Not bad, how many $k per month?!?
529
« on: October 19, 2016, 12:12 »
Come on people, every website can have problems. It's not the end of the world.
Occasional problems isn't an issue but with SS it has become a permanent feature. I've lost count how many times it's been unavailable recently both as a buyer and seller! Bear in mind their competitors have had zero issues in comparison.
530
« on: October 19, 2016, 11:47 »
It is morning ...
05:32
Wednesday, 19 October 2016 (GMT-4)
Time in New York, NY, USA
Please be patient, they must wake up first!!!
Midday here, they're a global company, operating in global markets..... do you think if it breaks it's left till the 1st guy arrives at the office in the morning... which ever morning you want to work to?!? Although there are times I do wonder 
You can't expect the hamster to get the big SS wheel turning before his first latte of the morning!
Haha... yeah, that sounds about right!
531
« on: October 19, 2016, 08:02 »
It is morning ...
05:32
Wednesday, 19 October 2016 (GMT-4)
Time in New York, NY, USA
Please be patient, they must wake up first!!!
Midday here, they're a global company, operating in global markets..... do you think if it breaks it's left till the 1st guy arrives at the office in the morning... which ever morning you want to work to?!? Although there are times I do wonder
532
« on: October 19, 2016, 04:33 »
Adobe must be rubbing their hands...anyone know when their site was last down?
Exactly, they obviously employ professionals. Whoever manages the IT contract for Shutterstock should be released from their duties. If it's in house, they need to move it to an experienced bunch of professionals and make sure the contract states/includes serious fines for any outage at all.
533
« on: October 19, 2016, 04:30 »
From shutterstock FB site:
"Shutterstock: Hello Shervon. We do experience some issues on the website, but our Devs are already on it to ensure a quick fix."
Cheers.... Shutterstock are starting to look like a bunch of amateurs.... they are the only site I deal with that struggle to get by a single week without some service outage. Truly pathetic!
534
« on: August 15, 2016, 10:44 »
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that SS is incompetent. To me, it looks like they are doing some smart testing, at a time when it should be done -- in the dog days of summer. If you have a theory on a new search algorithm that might boost sales, you test it out in a period that is traditionally low selling, so you can perfect it and be ready to maximize sales for the high selling days coming later in the year.
Does anyone really think they're trying to suppress sales overall? Whose interest would that serve? We complain when they boost newer submissions and seemingly punish the veterans, and now we complain when older images place higher in search?
To me, these changes look OK. My sales have been a bit higher the last few days, and my new stuff is still selling, though not as quickly as before. I'm looking at my new stuff that is selling now as my diamonds in the rough -- images that are extremely unique and serving a real demand. It doesn't matter how low they place in search results because they're in a specific niche and will be near the top no matter how SS tweaks the search. This is like shining a spotlight on exactly what I need to do moving forward. If it's something that's been done a million times over, don't even bother. Find something new -- that people actually want -- and you'll be rewarded. Yes, it's tough to do these days, but still possible.
While I agree with everything you've said, there is a fault with that "Earnings From New Content" graph. It's showing $0 for me and I know fine well that is completely wrong... by nearly $100.
At the moment, new & old images seem to be selling well, especially given the the time of year.
So are you hypothesizing that we could be getting sales, but they are just not being reported?
What I am saying and seeing, without any question of doubt, is that at least $90 of my last weeks sales at SS were new content yet the graph says $0. To me that says the graph is wrong and can't be used to determine whether your new images are selling or not. If, you have looked through all your sales via your monthly earnings spreadsheet and you still can't see any sales from new content, well, that's a different matter. Just don't use that graph as a reason to say your new content isn't selling. That data doesn't appear to be reliable. Certainly from my point of view.
Got it. Thanks.
No probs.... what is concerning is that their data is't accurate. Makes you wonder what else is wrong! I think they need to either correct it or remove it as soon as possible. At the very least, explain what is going on!
535
« on: August 15, 2016, 10:26 »
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that SS is incompetent. To me, it looks like they are doing some smart testing, at a time when it should be done -- in the dog days of summer. If you have a theory on a new search algorithm that might boost sales, you test it out in a period that is traditionally low selling, so you can perfect it and be ready to maximize sales for the high selling days coming later in the year.
Does anyone really think they're trying to suppress sales overall? Whose interest would that serve? We complain when they boost newer submissions and seemingly punish the veterans, and now we complain when older images place higher in search?
To me, these changes look OK. My sales have been a bit higher the last few days, and my new stuff is still selling, though not as quickly as before. I'm looking at my new stuff that is selling now as my diamonds in the rough -- images that are extremely unique and serving a real demand. It doesn't matter how low they place in search results because they're in a specific niche and will be near the top no matter how SS tweaks the search. This is like shining a spotlight on exactly what I need to do moving forward. If it's something that's been done a million times over, don't even bother. Find something new -- that people actually want -- and you'll be rewarded. Yes, it's tough to do these days, but still possible.
While I agree with everything you've said, there is a fault with that "Earnings From New Content" graph. It's showing $0 for me and I know fine well that is completely wrong... by nearly $100.
At the moment, new & old images seem to be selling well, especially given the the time of year.
So are you hypothesizing that we could be getting sales, but they are just not being reported?
What I am saying and seeing, without any question of doubt, is that at least $90 of my last weeks sales at SS were new content yet the graph says $0. To me that says the graph is wrong and can't be used to determine whether your new images are selling or not. If, you have looked through all your sales via your monthly earnings spreadsheet and you still can't see any sales from new content, well, that's a different matter. Just don't use that graph as a reason to say your new content isn't selling. That data doesn't appear to be reliable. Certainly from my point of view.
536
« on: August 15, 2016, 07:36 »
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that SS is incompetent. To me, it looks like they are doing some smart testing, at a time when it should be done -- in the dog days of summer. If you have a theory on a new search algorithm that might boost sales, you test it out in a period that is traditionally low selling, so you can perfect it and be ready to maximize sales for the high selling days coming later in the year.
Does anyone really think they're trying to suppress sales overall? Whose interest would that serve? We complain when they boost newer submissions and seemingly punish the veterans, and now we complain when older images place higher in search?
To me, these changes look OK. My sales have been a bit higher the last few days, and my new stuff is still selling, though not as quickly as before. I'm looking at my new stuff that is selling now as my diamonds in the rough -- images that are extremely unique and serving a real demand. It doesn't matter how low they place in search results because they're in a specific niche and will be near the top no matter how SS tweaks the search. This is like shining a spotlight on exactly what I need to do moving forward. If it's something that's been done a million times over, don't even bother. Find something new -- that people actually want -- and you'll be rewarded. Yes, it's tough to do these days, but still possible.
While I agree with everything you've said, there is a fault with that "Earnings From New Content" graph. It's showing $0 for me and I know fine well that is completely wrong... by nearly $100. At the moment, new & old images seem to be selling well, especially given the the time of year.
537
« on: August 15, 2016, 06:15 »
i know i sold new images (uploaded and approved in last 1-6 months) this week and I also see 0.00 earnings on that graph so i believe it is some kind of bug
Yeah, I've sold shitloads of new stuff in the last week but it says $0. A bug for sure. That doesn't mean other peoples new work isn't selling, it's just a different problem. Edit.... I've just had a quick look back over this last week and I'd say a good $90+ of this weeks sales are from new work. Some days over half of all sales. As far as I can see, this is without doubt a bug in the data collection. They've changed / added new fields to the database and the "New Content Graph" is now not pointing to the correct field anymore or, something along those lines. In short, an analyst has ballsed up the data collection/display.
538
« on: July 14, 2016, 12:20 »
Depending on what camera you're using. If it's a Sony, use Cine2 or Cine4 with Pro colour as it works the same/similar to SLOG2 but you can shoot at far lower ISO's. Grading is easy enough but aoid SLOG2 with S-Gamut as you'll end up with a yellow cast that is hard to remove. I use Color Finale with FCPx. Plenty of stuff on the net for in camera settings for Cine2/4 with Pro Colour. Camera Sony A7rii & A6300.
539
« on: July 12, 2016, 09:05 »
I've got a big port on all the agencies. I've been doing this for quite some time. Despite sales being down across the board due to a huge increase in collection sizes everywhere, I have enough data to see clear trend lines.
Just giving you background for what I'm about to say.
FT/AS will overtake SS at some point. I said it here late last year after I met with some Adobe Stock people. They are extremely bright people, tying their stock business to their software in ways that make a lot of sense. They are in microstock to win, and to me it's clear that in the end they will. It may not be this year, but they will end up the #1 agency.
+1 FT have been No1 for me for just over a year now. Not just a bit but by a several hundred $'s p/m. Their search seems to work well, new images seem to get a fair chance and I'm hoping the video side picks up as much as the stills. They are responsive when I have a question, non of this waiting so long that you've forgotten what . you asked (SS). Hopefully they continue this good progress!!!
540
« on: July 08, 2016, 08:27 »
Ok, so I checked my sales, and for June, it says that almost 50% of my sales came from US buyers, which is not true, so there's something wrong with US sales reporting...
I would say that if they are correct, then the total earnings is wrong. It's taking a while for support to come back to me so they're either ignoring it or, and more likely, waiting on a support team to investigate it.
541
« on: July 08, 2016, 05:13 »
Can you explain to us, how do you know, that your sales are coming from Adobe? Because as far as I know, there's no way of telling, only guessing by what comission one gets.
The amount of commission gives it away. I don't have the amounts to hand but from memory, I'm sure they show as .99 1.65 & 3.3. Can vary slightly depending on the country your based in I think. Check FT's FAQ for the payment amounts.
1.65 is also the amount from Fotolia 5 a month so its just guess work
Dam..... that theory shot down 
542
« on: July 08, 2016, 04:20 »
Can you explain to us, how do you know, that your sales are coming from Adobe? Because as far as I know, there's no way of telling, only guessing by what comission one gets.
The amount of commission gives it away. I don't have the amounts to hand but from memory, I'm sure they show as .99 1.65 & 3.3. Can vary slightly depending on the country your based in I think. Check FT's FAQ for the payment amounts.
543
« on: July 08, 2016, 04:15 »
Just saw something interesting while looking at the sales graph. US sales accounts for nearly 70% of my revenue now. It looks like they also back filled the previous months.
I remember looking at the graph a few weeks ago and only about 10% were from US sales. I wonder if they messed up the reporting metrics previously and just fixed it recently. It kinda make sense that 70% of sales would come from US buyers.
Yeah, I reported this to them 2 days ago asking for confirmation as to whether this is right or not. I use these figures in my tax reports so it will mean I have to change them all before submitting. Still waiting on a reply. Before this it seemed low but now it seems to have gone the other way.Makes me wonder whether the Total Earnings are correct?!? I asked about this as well. Probably a glitch in the system.
544
« on: July 05, 2016, 11:49 »
Down a bit but still over $1k..... it will take a bit of time to recover from DPC closure but I'm sure they'll manage it
545
« on: June 20, 2016, 12:35 »
Yes you're right about "their sites, their rules" but same content,same contrubitors and also sales coming fotolia statistics.Dpc was mirror of fotolia.They must consider contrubitors.My lost 300 usd each month and this is the main reason.
same content,same contrubitors and also sales coming fotolia statistics but not the same buyers, not the same view count and not the same downloads even when the search engine works the same way, IMO.
I can understand your anger for those $300 but sales are down for many contributors lately ( myself included), some say it's because of closing DPC.
Yeah, DPC must have accounted for quite a lot of sales, down about $250 a month since it closed on the 17th April. I don't think they've had as many DPC users migrating over to Adobe as they'd have liked. When googling it you can see discussions regarding alternatives (non Adobe ones). Most are looking for cheaper and even free images. Sad really as Adobe isn't badly priced at all. At the end of the day, they could suffer as well if their clients start to question some of the sub standard imagery they're using from those free / bargain basement outfits.
546
« on: June 15, 2016, 11:33 »
I'm sure max jpeg size is 28mb at Fotolia.
547
« on: June 06, 2016, 11:21 »
This poll should be set up differently.
It should be limited to those with "mature" ports in 2012. I think that would mean ports of at least 3,000 images in 2012. As it stands, there are probably a lot of people who were just starting microstock in 2012 and had maybe a few dozen images then and now have a few thousand. Of course they will be up by a huge percent. That tells us nothing about the state of microstock.
My gut tells me that if the question were rephrased to focus only on people who were microstock veterans in 2012, the answer would be "2016 = 2012" no matter how much we grew our ports. That's what happened to me, anyway. My port size is 3 or 4 times larger now, but I'm just spinning my wheels. The volume of competition today is just too overwhelming.
The poll is what it is you could of course do other polls to prove what you want to.....I'm not entirely sure what actual constructive use it would be. In the end you know its bad and you either can choose to suck it up or do something else.......
The reason they'd suggested it(I'd imagine), is there will be people that started in 2011/12 and they'd show increases of approx 2,000% and more if they were just starting out compared to now. Basic analytics, remove the outliers from the sample otherwise you will have wild and inaccurate results. If you want to see how ports are performing over time they need to be relatively stable. There would be something majorly wrong if someone that started in 2011/12 didn't have more than a 50% increase.
548
« on: May 24, 2016, 12:02 »
I don't have access to their coding and IT systems so am not as expert as some people seem to think they are. I do know they have a field giving the download time. I don't see why they would have to prioritise anything if this is recorded at point of sale. Don't think anyone is saying they instantly transfer the credits.
The time you receive the email advising of a sale is often the same time that is recorded on the sale, Purchase Date (see below). However, this is not always the case and the time you are notified and the account updated, does not always match the time on the "Purchase Date". I've seen it when they have been several hours difference. I'd imagine that it will not just be the time taken to process the sale but also, on occasions, verifying it...... i.e. the money, card or account is not fraudulent for suspicious transactions. Anyway, I'd imagine it's as close to real time as they can possibly do it but it isn't guaranteed that your account will be updated "Instantly".... especially when you take into account how many millions of images are being sold at any one point in time. Example of details on sale notification email. ----------- File Name: xxxxxxxxxxxx Purchase Date: 2016-05-24 18:53:26 Purchase License: M Commission: 1.32 -----
549
« on: May 22, 2016, 04:52 »
No, I have the opposite of your.
Same here. See attached. I only add 2-3 photos per week (if any)
What's interesting with the graphs on display here and other posts is, if you cut off the tops of the peaks they fill the troughs and you get a steady average. A simple pointer would be, a very large peak is often followed by successive drops until a balance is established (the average of the highs and lows match the overall average over a larger period of time). I think it's part and parcel of their ranking system.
If you create a rolling 30, 60 & 90 day average it irons out the larger swings and you can see the overall trend from a smoother line. A rolling 7 day average is also a useful stat to track. The 60 & 90 day trackers + the 7 day one allowed me to forecast my earnings for the coming week..... was 94% accurate. The joys of being an ex-city analyst :-)
Thanks! So do you think I'm doing pretty good then? 
Hard to say, It's all relative. What's good to one person will be poor to another. The "Yay, my incomes gone up by 50%" might only mean $10 extra for some while others it could be several hundred $'s for others. My poor week would be considered excellent to you or others. It's all relative and you can only monitor the progression of your own business and how well it's doing based on the effort put in. You can't compare it to others as there are too many variables. They could employ staff, upload 1000's a week etc. Also, if you stop supplying to an agency and the level of income flatlines or dips slightly, it could be considered bad but if the reason you have stopped is making you more money than you would have made if you carried on supplying at the same level, then it's good.
550
« on: May 20, 2016, 17:07 »
No, I have the opposite of your.
Same here. See attached. I only add 2-3 photos per week (if any)
What's interesting with the graphs on display here and other posts is, if you cut off the tops of the peaks they fill the troughs and you get a steady average. A simple pointer would be, a very large peak is often followed by successive drops until a balance is established (the average of the highs and lows match the overall average over a larger period of time). I think it's part and parcel of their ranking system. If you create a rolling 30, 60 & 90 day average it irons out the larger swings and you can see the overall trend from a smoother line. A rolling 7 day average is also a useful stat to track. The 60 & 90 day trackers + the 7 day one allowed me to forecast my earnings for the coming week..... was 94% accurate. The joys of being an ex-city analyst :-)
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
