My latest batch to them was reviewed after two weeks

I received a payment from them in March for what I knew I had there and just got another, smaller one yesterday, which I assume is for any sales that occurred after the initial payout but before they closed.  It seems that they are paying everyone what is owed so that is good.

It doesn't happen very often but it is definitely very annoying and like you say impossible to figure out the real total.  Since PP sales are reported a month late you'd think they could get these things sorted out before posting.  I hadn't had any in a few months until last week.

Very interesting.  Their share price at around $38 right now has a P/E ratio of over 70, which seems very high to me as well.  If the author of that piece is correct, there is a lot of money to be made in selling SSTK stock short.  Might be worth a gamble...

I still think SS had a huge missed opportunity when they went public and didn't offer stock options to contributors - would have made us all stock owners with an increased interest in their future success.

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on April 12, 2016, 11:36

I always calculate Sales per accepted image for each agency each month - that tells me where I get the best return so where to concentrate on in the future. 

Shouldn't it be sales per submitted image you have done the work whether they accept it or not?

No, I want to know which agencies are doing the best of marketing the images they have online.  Rejected images of course are wasted effort but it's worth it to try harder for agencies that have a better return.

The total amount you get of course is the most important overall but the return per accepted image I think tells you more.  For example, for me lately the one with the best return per accepted image is not SS and it tells me where I should concentrate on building up my portfolio.

I just had one for $0.32 !!!  I can't believe it!   The last time I had one it was for $8.55 and I thought that was low for an EL.  The time before that it was for $13.02. 

They started to suck big time once they put in their RC system.  I am going to write to ask them what is going on but if they are selling any kind of EL for only 32 miserable cents then it may be time to can them.

Why don't you post a couple of your editorial captions that got rejected here?  That will be the easiest way to get useful feedback - it's hard to comment on something you can't see.

Why don't you post a couple of your editorial captions that got rejected here?  That will be the easiest way to get useful feedback - it's hard to comment on something you can't see.

But recently Leaf implemented a little change that lets us see the ratings (and number of votes) for all agencies via simple mouse-over (hover your mousepointer over the agency name in the list, you'll see the numbers).

Thanks - I didn't know about the mouse-over thing.  Very interesting.

I am skeptical about the Alamy numbers but they have 120 votes so more than DP and Pond5.  If those numbers are accurate then self hosted is doing almost as well as SS, although of course over a much smaller number of contributors.

I don't think it's correct to say that Bush convinced Congress to invade Iraq. Rather, Bush invaded Iraq and later convinced Congress to pass a resolution supporting what he had already done.   Now, with the prospect of an utter fool like Trump as President, we see what a dangerous precedent Bush has set.

It depends on the Bush.  The first President Bush deployed troops to the Gulf during the second half of 1990 and then asked Congress for a resolution during January of 1991, after he had the troops there but before entering Iraq.  Bush II convinced Congress to give him his resolution for war during October of 2002 before invading in March of 2003 (can you remember where you were during the whole "shock and awe" spectacle?).  Although it seemed like they both invaded first and asked for resolutions later it isn't exactly true.  However, I agree completely about the precedent and how scary it would be if Trump were in charge.

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on March 21, 2016, 08:39

For some reason I have never liked Hillary

If Bill was running against Drumpf, would you vote for him?

I live in Indiana where most people are quite conservative and the state almost always goes Republican.  For that reason we usually have almost no ads for presidential candidates and no visits from the candidates - the Republicans take Indiana for granted and the Democrats don't think it's worth their while.  However, in 2008 Indiana actually was in play and Bill Clinton came to give a talk at nearby West Lafayette High School.  My girlfriend and I went to hear him.  Too bad I wasn't doing stock then or I would have tried to get credentials through SS.

He was an incredible speaker and I finally understood what people meant about his personal magnetism.  I'm a scientist in real life and not easily swayed by charisma, but Bill Clinton really made an impression - it was the best political speech I have ever heard and he gave the feeling of really caring about everyone.  My girlfriend wanted to have his baby (just kidding, but she was impressed).  After hearing him in person I would have definitely voted for him again, despite his stupidity with "that woman", Ms Lewinsky.  By the end of his term the economy was doing well, the budget was running a surplus and he almost got Osama with a missile strike - just think how much of a difference a few hours made in that case.  It's too bad George Bush and crew came in next and trashed the economy.  If Hillary can get in and continue many of the policies of her husband maybe we can start having surpluses again and start to pay down some of the debt that has been accumulating since Reagan.  Much as I don't like Hilary, I would vote for any Clinton over Trump - I cannot imagine any scenario that would cause me to vote for Trump for anything, ever.

BTW, when Reagan was President, Republicans were so in love with him that they wanted to change the Constitution to get rid of Presidential term limits.  By the end of his term the economy was starting to have problems and his dementia was really starting to show so it is doubtful whether he would have been elected again.  However, if they had changed it then Bill would have been able to run again and the US might be a very different country.  It just goes to show that you should be careful what you wish for - Republican shenanigans with the current Supreme Court nominee might come back to bite them in their rears in 20 years.

Bernie Sanders might be almost as bad for the US as Trump.  High taxes on the rich looks like a good idea but it doesn't work because they get around them and don't pay them.  He wants to spend more and wont be able to get more in.  So the US would soon be in a mess, as the debt is already $19,135,778,280,520 (will be more by the time you read this ).  No idea why people would want to implement something that has already been proven not to work?  As the great philosophers Benny Andersson, Bj�rn Ulvaeus and Stig Anderson wrote "The history book on the shelf, is always repeating itself"

What's been proven not to work is the Republican idea of cutting taxes for the rich and increasing spending on the military - we did that under Reagan, and Bush II did the same thing on steroids and it was a disaster for the debt both times.  Bush I called Reagan's plan "voodoo economics" and when he tried to make things better was voted out of office.  Now his sons and all of the Republication candidates have embraced voodoo economics as their main platform - I guess due to the backlash against Bush I, even though what he did was working (and got even better under Clinton and now Obama).

Before Reagan, the rich paid more of a fair share of taxes and the economy seemed to work pretty well.  As far as I know the US has never tried the kinds of things Sanders is proposing so there is no way to know whether it will work.  I have been very skeptical about whether he can come even close to paying for some of the things he wants - free higher education, expanded social security, etc - but a couple of independent economic analyses have said that his education plan might work (although I am still skeptical).  Of course that assumes that Congress would cooperate and help out instead of actively trying to sabotage everything as they have done against Obama the past seven years.

For economic policies, all of the Republicans are proposing the same old voodoo economics that we know doesn't work.  Sanders is proposing something entirely different and wants to make radical changes that would be almost impossible to get through Congress with very unpredictable results - we could make some analyses based on other countries, particularly Europe, but trying such things on a larger scale here would be a huge experiment that very few would be wiling to test.  That leaves Hillary as proposing to mostly continue the policies of Obama and make some incremental changes.  For some reason I have never liked Hillary and the Clintons are just too enamored of their celebrity status for my taste.  She hasn't driven a car in 20 years - totally out of touch with real life for most of us, despite what she tries to say.  Not driving may be true of many top members of Government, I don't know, but the idea of someone who always has a driver seems very elitist to me.  However, she is the only one in the middle between the extremes of the Republicans and Sanders so to me seems to be our best choice among the available options.  I have been on her side since she survived 11 hours of grilling by Grand Inquisitor Gowdy during the Benghazi show hearings in Congress - the Republicans went way over the top on that one wasting over $5 million in taxpayer dollars for no benefit except to further their political goals.  Such nonsense does not happen (or at least not very much) when the Democrats are in charge of Congress - they usually actually try to govern, unlike their Republican counterparts nowadays.