MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Microstockphoto

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 49
651
paypal earns interest of off your money? my word, criminal, no other bank does that.

652
tror, where did you get that 90% from ? thumbs? honestly, because it is a made up number.

surely, if your accoutn was accessed by someone else from another country and paypal didnt lock your account down for this activity, you would be here posting about it how incompetent paypal didnt lock your account down

you do realise that paypal has these measures in place to protect YOU?

653
where did you get 90 percent from? tinfoil hat

654
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock going to wrong way.
« on: July 09, 2016, 11:52 »
i wrote in 2004. "Just wait when a camera phone is good enough and the sites start Farming third world contributors that will Take and enjoy 10 Cents a Image" I got more negative response from that than anything I've written since. No software needed. Just a app to process and submit. BOOM!! done in seconds. Well....were almost there guys. The sites have been farming for a few years now.

that was 12 years sgo. anyone can predict something logical and wait until for it to come true and then say i told you so. a broken clock is right twice per day

655
Off Topic / Re: snipers shoot dead police officers in Dallas
« on: July 09, 2016, 04:04 »
It doesn't need to be amended, just interpreted correctly.  The exact wording of the second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  The intention was to allow the keeping and bearing of arms to be done exclusively in the context of a well regulated militia for the security of the state.  We can know this with absolute certainly because that's what it says in plain English.  Random yahoos keeping guns in their house is not well regulated, not a militia, and not involved in the security of the State, so absolutely, 100% is NOT allowed under the second amendment!  Individuals keeping arms outside of a militia is not covered by the constitution so should be left to the states.

This amendment was added most likely because the Revolution was fresh on the minds of the framers.  In 1791, the U.S. did not have a large, professional military like now.  In the event of an external threat (like the British), the military was augmented by militias organized by the states.  Most arms, powder and shot was stored at community magazines and would be issued to the militias when needed.  In 1774 and 1775 the British raided the magazines in the Massachusetts and Virginia colonies to try to prevent armed rebellion.  I think these events in part were what stimulated the Founders to add the second amendment.

The modern equivalent of a 1790s militia would be the National Guard, and so far nobody has talked about disarming them.  That is what is protected, not individuals owning guns outside of a militia.  Firearm ownership outside of a militia is not mentioned by the Constitution, so on that issue it is silent.  In the 1790s firearms were mostly flintlock muskets, which require a powder cartridge rammed in the barrel that is ignited by a flash of gunpowder started by a spark from flint hitting steel.  Guns were made by hand, so were not easily available and quite expensive - your average citizen certainly would not have owned one unless they needed it for hunting.  Keeping a lot of gunpowder in houses that were lit and heated by open flames was not a great idea, hence the communal magazines for the militias.  The Founding Fathers were very reasonable in most of their beliefs, and I am quite certain they would be appalled at how their words have been misconstrued to facilitate the rampant killing in this country.  It is a shame that one organization has been able to buy off so many members of Congress and get like-minded numbskulls appointed to the "Supreme" court to foist this travesty on the rest of us.  We don't need to amend the constitution, just read what is written and understand its historical context.  Unfortunately, that seems impossible so maybe it is time for the people to take back the country and rewrite that amendment in a way that could not by misinterpreted.

In Australia, after a series of shootings they put restrictions on gun ownership in 1996 and problems since then have dropped to almost none.  The American people need to be as sensible as the Australians.

The police killings of course are an entirely different matter and a very difficult problem.  Obviously the police do a very difficult job and have to make life-or-death decisions in a split second.  If they hesitate they might be killed.  On the other hand, it is quite clear that the police have been literally getting away with murder probably going back thousands of years and that needs to stop.  Finding the right balance so the police can protect themselves (and us!) while making sure those who cross the line are identified and punished is more difficult.  More cameras and a mandatory review plus a thorough psych evaluation of every cop who shoots someone (to identify any potential psychopaths) would be a good first step.

excellent excellent  post, cant be repeated enough

656
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock going to wrong way.
« on: July 08, 2016, 02:01 »
yeah, hackers ?! that has to be silliest excuse to date on this forum to explain a drop of sales

wasnt there a list of silly reasons for dropping sales? lately i have seen a few more on this forum that could be added

658
the trick to change the royalties has worked perfectly, havent seen an EL in ages

659
i got an apology, yay

We sincerely apologize for the concern caused

660
I got it and then the next morning got a we apologize you shouldn't have gotten that letter.  Something about to wide of an audience.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

there was no apology

661
i didnt read an apology

663
well, my images are back as well, i was missing over 50 images.

664
but why are they deleting images and what about editorial images

665
dozens of images deleted and have no clue which or why. thought the email said to change titles, why delete images instantaneously without giving us time to correct. harsh

666
i got a pm from laurin rinder telling me he had heard that ss is preparing the company to be sold off, this was related to the amount of images they are accepting, so this could be related, having 77000 contributors work for them, cleaning up titles, so they look nice and clean and buffed up before they put themselves in the store window

667
probably in your SPAM folder haha

668
it seems the email is real, my God, this is just too pathetic for words, take on spammers ok, but  dont blanket email everyone who has a repeated word or 2

ss admin is completely ingoring all complaints and just telling people to contact them to get examples from your port.

the reply email address in the email is the email address for buyers,

i am with jo ann here, ss starting to look more and more like istock,  messing up one thing after the other, which in itself is an achievement,

but at least buyers have a shiny new editor to play with

669
it is NOT about keywords

670
if they run a script for repeated words, they will find all editorial images, because their guidelines ask us to use the city and month twice, well at least they used to

672
they ffed up on their end, ignore the email, i am sure its a mistake

673
I'm banned from SS forums. Can someone go poke their head in and see if admins are chiming in and repost back here?


There are four threads going on in there on this topic, but so far no admins have chimed in.


Thank you.


actually the message in the email is the start of thread by a shutterstock admin called kate shutterstock, so they are getting the issue of spam addressed, which is fine, the email must have been an error, and you can still read the forums if you are banned,

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/88687-shutterstocks-position-on-repeated-words-and-phrases-in-titles/

674
Looks like a lot of people got that.   I went back and double-checked, because I'm very careful of keywording.   My keywords have been replaced in many cases with words from the title or description, and now include all single-word keywords, including "the", "on", "of", "with".    Maybe they're going to one-word keywords like Dreamstime uses?

You are right. My keywords have changed as well!!!!

Words like "Great Britain" are now "Great", "Britain". "3D illustration" is now "3D", "illustration".

The email could have been an automated message that was triggered by them tinkering with the system.

Why have they not notified us about the change?  >:( I wonder what the consequences of this are going to be.  ???

that issue has been around for years, it is a bug, they never fixed it

675
something is wrong the email is from Shutterstock@shutterstockmail.com, when you click reply it goes to Shutterstock Contributors support@shutterstock.com which is their email address for buyers, for contributors it normally is  submit@shutterstock.com

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 49

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors