|
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 - luissantos84
6051
« on: April 19, 2011, 08:28 »
look at the right.. I cannot say that dont have sales but far from expected, try yourself
6052
« on: April 19, 2011, 08:11 »
I think it's a great idea and most of the MS sites should get 2/3 of the content deleted, IS probably about 50% and Shutterstock and similar agencies, where ppl post series of tens of photos with little or no variety and terrible quality up to 90%. I'd delete all of the files with heavy and obvious keyword spamming as well, I'm loosing my mind trying to track my newly approved photos on Shutterstock. For instance I made a series in a hair salon, every ppl shot has the keyword hair, although a man with a helmet is standing in front of his house. But there are much worse cases, I just uploaded an athletics series, searching for athletics and I get a series of 30 totally crappy shots of BUGS, that immediately pushed my images to the 2nd page. Looking for shopping and finding cartons of eggs. Ahhh. Keyword spamming and huge series of crappy shots are killing MS. And when will they start looking for qualities such as originality, concept and marketability, just checking for IQ doesn't cut it anymore. It's driving away the buyers. I'd say 90% of the pre 2007 content should be deleted, the best shots from that era are just average now (most of them anyway)
now you are just going NUTS like the topic name.. removing 2/3 ?? thats like bringing SS from 15 million to 5 million, that is just dumb in my opinion, they should have done it from start not now erasing everything and not even on that amount, that is like paying again a reviewer to go all around (when it should have been done before) thats is just too much work and a lot more money.. they should look to some that really have similar stuff (and not well done..) they should look for new cntributors, not calling them and approved their first pictures that arent worth and good enough to be online..
6053
« on: April 19, 2011, 07:12 »
Yeah, but if 5% of the images deliver 95% of the earnings (as I suspect they do) then if the storage cost is more than 5% of the overall costs, 95% of the images become uneconomical to store, don't they? Something like that, anyway. Serban's got at thing against images with zero downloads, which certainly do not pay for their storage.
How many hundreds of thousands of non-selling similars should Dreamstime store to ensure a buyer whose going to buy one anyway gets a big choice?
I doubt that it has anything to do with 'storage costs', which frankly must be fairly minimal in the greater scheme of things. If you wanted to significantly reduce storage costs then you'd have to trim down the entire collection by 20%+ and there's no likelihood of that happening. Dreamstime were ruthlessly rejecting perfectly good images years ago for being 'too similar' when at the same time they were breathlessly celebrating every 100K target attained on their way to 1M images. I'm sure that this is a reaction to customer complaints about the poor search results but of course that issue is almost entirely to do with the pathetic algorithm.
I think it's quite likely that the upload limits were imposed to save money on reviewing costs though as those must be fairly hefty. Even if the costs of reviewing were as little as 10c per image, with 100K new images per week being uploaded, it adds up to over $500K per annum.
and pictures will be a lot more selective like at IS which will be more "enjoyable" to them (to sell to) but I guess they are going "pretty" further from acting this way when they are not close to Shutterstock, IS
6054
« on: April 18, 2011, 12:59 »
what is the more concerning is what is going in at this minute.. I am far from pro but I dont send crappy pictures, tons are approved from new contributors, they are giving them incentives to upload but those pictures shouldnt be approved, they are not even done properly but as they are new they get in.. not going to pick portfolio but you can find this quite fast..
I really think that Dreamstime want a picture of something from everyone, if you produce a better one they said you have already on portfolio, they are just looking for new contributors but not looking into what are approving..
6055
« on: April 18, 2011, 12:33 »
6056
« on: April 15, 2011, 17:39 »
I would see a few of course, thats not good to exclusives too I guess.. ok were like 10 uploading in this bug but as I saw today and placed here at forum there are still a few getting pictures with this bug, why wasnt solved and why cannot I "bug" a little too?
well, good luck :-) hope it has a happy outcome for you. in the meantime, uploads are turned off for all of us this weekend. so guess we all miss out on some spots this week.
happy for me? as always I have my files on deepmeta I upload them but never went to the 21th slot :p
6057
« on: April 15, 2011, 17:31 »
I would see a few of course, thats not good to exclusives too I guess.. ok were like 10 uploading in this bug but as I saw today and placed here at forum there are still a few getting pictures with this bug, why wasnt solved and why cannot I "bug" a little too?
6058
« on: April 15, 2011, 17:18 »
LOL I didnt take advantage because I didnt had it, seem that bug wasnt for everyone, or should I have deepmeta trying all day long?? LOL
6059
« on: April 15, 2011, 16:56 »
like I said previous on this topic, this is totally unfair, thats the main reason for sure..
I am uploading every week for exactly 2 years, have a little more of 700 files online.. Approval ratio increasing now at close 65%.. I am not saying I would be rich or that my pictures would sell more or less with more pictures online, but the truth is that I dont deserve less than other in the same situation, some uploaded 600 on a month when I could managed that after 2 years.. it that reasonable?
6060
« on: April 15, 2011, 16:43 »
the playing field was even; unlimited uploads were available to everyone it seems. but I think it would still be fair to limit future uploads for those contributors who went hog wild uploading. but if we're really talking about even playing fields, I have a few lightboxes I'd like my images in 
sorry but there are uploads slots.. files go in when they are not supposed to, so IS need to do something, or end the uploads slots, or like I said deactivate files
6061
« on: April 15, 2011, 16:32 »
I upload every single week since I start and never seen this bug, jeez it is a fast one that I cannot managed to catch 
6062
« on: April 15, 2011, 16:22 »
uploads should be suspended, or somehow, deactivated and active week after week
6063
« on: April 15, 2011, 15:47 »
jeez 800 views and only 54 votes! everybody wants to watch but no answer eheh from 0.41$ to 0.50$ now
6064
« on: April 15, 2011, 15:43 »
had a few too removed but so far are still online
6065
« on: April 15, 2011, 15:22 »
I know I remember rogermexico posting something about this in one of the (many) bug threads. I think he said they fixed it. But even using google search I can't find that thread.
I did see one silver exclusive who uploaded 330 (not the 430 that multimedia's charts said) between 2/28 and 3/30. I think silver's limit is 20 a week or so, so they're definitely over. I'll post something in the Help forum.
Yes 20, 24 at 2500 sales
6066
« on: April 15, 2011, 14:56 »
OLD TOPIC! anybody knows what IS have done regarding this matter? when I open contributor charts I can see non-exclusives upload more than 400 when it should be around 100
6067
« on: April 15, 2011, 08:46 »
6068
« on: April 15, 2011, 08:40 »
Uploading has little effect.
Not uploading is even worse.
Yes but its little if any point in uploading when the files goes to the last page and will never see the light of day. There they will rest in peace untill you get a notification of no sale and they are removed.
so much for that.
I agree but there is SS that gives you always sales for new pictures and perhaps a long run depending the picture sales
6069
« on: April 14, 2011, 18:01 »
how many sales at SS?
6070
« on: April 14, 2011, 17:12 »
6071
« on: April 14, 2011, 11:00 »
6072
« on: April 14, 2011, 10:54 »
I wake up today at 3pm 
6073
« on: April 14, 2011, 10:49 »
Yes, I have proof. Some of my sales result from searches the have "clipping path" in them. When I buy from microstock, if given the choice between two similar images I will always choose the one with a clipping path. It's just less work. Besides, if you have already gone to the trouble of creating an isolation with a path, why not include the path? It's not any extra work.
I agree, honestly I have never done it because I was feeling that it was a thing of the past, perhaps should start doing it from now on, thanks for sharing
6074
« on: April 14, 2011, 10:17 »
By the way, go back to your Path and convert it to a Clipping Path. Isolated objects with Clipping Paths are much sought after.
do you have any proof of that? lately I found that just a few use it, dont know if it is a better deal to designer, it has no work thats the real fact but are really more search in that?
6075
« on: April 14, 2011, 09:29 »
yep box wont go in, do it again, feather the selection
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
