|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
6301
« on: July 14, 2011, 11:58 »
Cheryl, at a certain point you have to stop caring.
So you think there's no big vector announcement coming? 
Sure there is. It'll be right after they launch logos 
6302
« on: July 14, 2011, 11:56 »
Man, I am never going to get to a million.
Me neither
6303
« on: July 13, 2011, 16:05 »
JJRD is at his clearest when RogerMexico speaks for him I think that you pointed out something they didn't want to discuss and they are trying to avoid getting drawn in. Unless you want to get banned from the forums, I'd probably leave their non-answer to speak for itself
6304
« on: July 13, 2011, 12:00 »
That little experiment didn't last long!..
Thanks! but Im not too sure I follow you here. What exactly do you mean? 
best.
Is it the chart that's the puzzle or the comment to shank? They're two separate thoughts. The chart just showed that yesterday's slot system has gone. The comment to shank that he thinks his diversity and regular uploading renders him immune from best match changes was that I think he's wrong to assume that means best match changes are not relevant.
6305
« on: July 13, 2011, 11:34 »
That little experiment didn't last long! So today it's a slightly higher "regular" count than before the slots.
@shank. Diversity isn't your issue, but that your sales patterns and volume aren't such that you can see what happens.
It has happened to many people, many times - overnight drops so large it was like turning off a tap. And that's exactly what it was. You shouldn't extrapolate from your own situation and assume that's true for all - a sample size of one over 1/3 of iStock's time in business isn't statistically significant.
6306
« on: July 13, 2011, 10:17 »
It did change a week or so ago - X-L and vector subscriptions are now 35 cents, smaller sizes still 25 cents.
6307
« on: July 12, 2011, 20:30 »
When you see the chart in Lund's blog post (Pickerell's) you see how few slots Vetta, TAC and the iStock Vectors/Exclusive get. Compare to Flickr collection's 20... Tough business 
6308
« on: July 12, 2011, 19:30 »
They've implemented some sort of slot system - of the first 200, Agency gets 28, Vetta 52 and everything else 120 - in all but one of the test searches I keep track of. Not sure how many deviate - sexy woman is the only one in my list of searches
6309
« on: July 12, 2011, 16:55 »
I like it in theory, but it seemed to get stuck after one or two keywords - I could add more but it never graphed them and if I deleted the ones I entered (including the first two it did graph) it kept the graph anyway.
Closed the tab and tried again - it only graphed one keyword before giving up (one of the ones I tried to add the first time around, so I know the problem isn't the particular word).
I think there must be bugs, or perhaps bugs with Firefox on the Mac?
6310
« on: July 12, 2011, 16:23 »
A person can attend such an event even if not exclusive at Istockphoto.
The rules have varied over time, but it is generally the case that if there is iStock money contributing to the minilypse, all images taken at the 'lypse can only be sold through iStock, regardless of your exclusivity status. For an independent, that isn't a particularly attractive proposition. Any of the images I took at the HQ 'lypse, for example, are only for sale at iStock because that was part of the deal, and the deal survives my termination of exclusivity.
6311
« on: July 12, 2011, 10:36 »
Several people apparently got the wrong amount. One person thinks it's way too much and several others think it's very much under what it should be.
And as we have no stats on RCs, no detailed accounting when these "admin adjust" amounts show up on the CSV, who can tell?
6312
« on: July 12, 2011, 01:56 »
I received my PayPal payment this morning. You don't say what payment method you are using, but there is a Canadian postal strike delaying check deliveries, I believe.
6313
« on: July 11, 2011, 15:15 »
I want to buy a dairy cow for the back garden.Fresh milk on my cornflakes ever morning would be bliss !
If you'd saved your 1000, you could have a mini-herd of dairy cows and sell the milk: that way you'd be quids in.
He wouldn't get a very good herd at that price.
Goats, perhaps?
6314
« on: July 11, 2011, 14:26 »
...But the question I have is... why BigStock and not Shutterstock? ... I would think that the issue of buying a monthly/yearly subscription is one of those things you're either up for or not. If you like that way of buying images, you're probably already using SS. If not, why fight with the customer over switching models? Just let them switch agencies. It may also be that if things backfire and buyers don't go for ads that directly target (and indirectly name) the big dog, they haven't tarnished their premium brand. All just guesses. At least they didn't hire the flakes who did FT's recent ad campaign
6315
« on: July 10, 2011, 12:50 »
Perhaps you could change the title of the post to reflect what sort of comment you're making - or soliciting from others.
As you know, speaking freely about the partner program could include comments from those of us who consider the program a deeply anti-contributor move on Getty's part - given your support for it, I doubt that's what you were after.
We could rehash what a monumentally incompetent cock-up the various software teams have made of the seemingly simple process of moving content from a to b and removing said content if asked. However we already have lots of threads about iStock's software "challenges". Not sure what the point would be - bug reports should go elsewhere and after a while it gets tiring listing all the broken stuff.
If you want to collect data on who has seen new files show up on the partner sites, the title doesn't really make that clear
6316
« on: July 09, 2011, 11:38 »
I've been uploading a lot lately (more than would be typical if it was just a week's shoot). Although CanStock is faster than many of the sites, I have found the numbers given for reviews are completely out of line with how long my images take to review. I have a batch of 100 images waiting since Tuesday, for example. No new model releases or property releases. I have been caught by the keyword thing - I used Olympic to describe the mountains outside Seattle in one shot and that got the image flagged for special treatment. I put the delay down to the new site, but reading that other people have had quick reviews recently, it must be the larger batches? Over the last few weeks, as I've gone to the site to see if the images were approved (at which point I upload more) I've seen all these 4 hours, 5 minutes, etc. review times, and honestly, it makes being patient much, much harder than seeing nothing at all
6317
« on: July 08, 2011, 18:27 »
The UI for contributors is pretty awful - most of the stuff is there, but finding it isn't easy. ...
Or go to "For Photographers" click on "More" and a whole new world of options opens up to you. ...
This would be an example of UI issues. Both Sell Images and More under For Photographers link to the same page, sellimages.php. Also, the links are at the bottom so you have to scroll to get to it (I have a large 24" monitor and it's not visible without scrolling). You can't see any of that information at a glance anywhere. If you go to the site homepage, although it welcomes you by name on the top right, there's nothing clickable there to get you to the interface for contributors (if your name were a link, for example, or there were an icon that took you to the main contributor page).
6318
« on: July 08, 2011, 18:21 »
Is there a problem with the servers? I have been trying to attach model releases to my images all day and can't get the pages to load, or they load partially, or I get an error message.
Things were fine around 10am here (1pm your time) for my batch of 100.
6319
« on: July 08, 2011, 01:13 »
I hope that's wry humor on your part - and not a misunderstanding about the location of Milan.
As this is an event only for exclusives, I think it's more likely to generate discussion only on the IS forums (I know you're currently in the penalty box).
6320
« on: July 08, 2011, 00:28 »
The UI for contributors is pretty awful - most of the stuff is there, but finding it isn't easy. See this page for the image downloads you've had. There may be another way to get to it, but the only way I know is this: Scroll to the bottom of the page and under the heading "For Photographers" click on the Sell Images link, you'll get a bunch of links to contributor functions. Click on Download to get to that page. It'd be better if it were sorted in reverse chronological order - most recent first - but you can pick a specific day from the drop down lists if you want.
6321
« on: July 07, 2011, 09:42 »
I took the survey but I agree with the above. A CV is a reasonable idea if you can't do equally well by just interpreting from context. It's also fine to be demanding in terms of the upload process if you produce huge sales.
Veer's problem is that you're not easy to upload to and from what I read, sales are pretty modest. Bad combination from a contributor point of view.
6322
« on: July 07, 2011, 03:22 »
...You make more sense than most of the microstock sites put together. Ok that may not be so difficult. ... This may be a text book definition of damning with faint praise
6323
« on: July 06, 2011, 17:29 »
It is a tough call, but it's interesting to see how different sites view content. 123rf has accepted most of my images - some property release rejections for things taken from public places, some "minimal commercial value " rejections that are IMO off the mark. As an example, a series of a teen's messy room (which is not "pretty", but that's the point) has one image that outsells the others (what was true at iStock has turned out the same at SS and DT). Guess which one 123rf rejected as having no commercial value? Shutterstock has done similar things.
I'm struggling to get everything uploaded, so I'm generally letting things go. I do think having some sort of appeals process (more formal that just resubmitting with a note to reviewer) is something all the sites should have. Limit the numbers so you don't get a flood of whining.
IS has always said that it's irrelevant to them that something sells elsewhere. Not sure why that is irrelevant as these sites aren't art galleries.
Shutterstock accepted one appeal (on the basis that it had sold 500 times at iStock so its commercial value couldn't be that limited) but the others I tried (with a note; I wasn't trying to sneak anything past them) they just rejected again. I think the frustration comes from the fact that you know it's not possible for the sites to be certain that they're making the right call. Obviously we hope they get it right more than wrong...
6324
« on: July 06, 2011, 17:12 »
I don't really know enough to understand what's really going on, but I do know that having my own web site on which to host any images I want to make available seems like a safer place for my content.
Do you have your own dedicated server at home? Or are you using a commercial host? They *may* have similar text in place.
It's yahoo's small business hosting. I don't recall anything granting them a broad license to any content I upload. Plus the family images are in password protected directories, so they'd have to share passwords with any third parties, which I can't imagine they would. The only non password protected stuff is watermarked. My husband wanted to have a server at home so he can have a place to experiment, but I've consistently veto'd that. He has the skills and the interest but not the time - plus I'd find beta software and other little surprises that might shorten our marriage
6325
« on: July 06, 2011, 16:38 »
... If you have put the image into the iStock Photo+ plan, you are further restricted in removing it from sale.
You can deactivate any image - including Photo+ or Exclusive+ - at any time. What you can't do is return the image to the main collection until the 6 months are up. Anything that's in the iStock partner program is a total crapshoot - they seem to have a hard time adding or deleting content there. With BigStock you have a 3 month wait. They may waive it if you ask (they did for me once, long ago when Tim & Dawn still owned it) but there's no guarantee.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
