|
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 - cmannphoto
76
« on: October 18, 2012, 07:20 »
I have had one earlier this year for 4 months and heard a couple people having some for 6 months. Then another was answered in a month, so you just never know.
77
« on: October 11, 2012, 16:20 »
Add to LB is up and working from the detail page
78
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:57 »
Just did a Google Image Search of that composite and it has been picked up by a lot of other web sites, around 150 so far.
79
« on: October 10, 2012, 07:39 »
If the new files show up in your portfolio, sort your port by newest first and from the search results page you can add those files to the correct lightboxes (unless they broke that when trying to fix the detail page  )
Thanks for the suggestion. The only option I see on the portfolio page is "Add page". Since I have a variety of images from different shoots showing, sorted by age, "add page" doesn't do me any good. So still waiting, I guess 
Kelvin put together some work arounds at the top of the Help forum http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347033&page=1 I have been using the GreaseMonkey script and it been working just fine, especially for newly accepted files that have not been Indexed yet http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=335129&page=1
80
« on: October 10, 2012, 07:34 »
I can't find it at the moment, but somewhere in the HQ Update thread, Dave Clark (dcdp) posted a new greasemonkey script (I think it was modified from Sean's script) that you can install and it will find the downloads that go along with the mystery money. I couldn't get it to work for a bit, and then he told me I needed to check the "Force Search" option, which goes through every file -- and I found it. If you have a lot of files, it can take awhile, but it is better than going through each of your files individually to look for a download that isn't showing otherwise. If you can't find it in the thread, I'm sure you can site mail him and he'll be happy to point send you a link.
Here are the links Yeah the same link as before. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/52928923/is_fdh.user.jsFor anyone interested but unfamiliar, more details here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=345511&messageid=6738503
81
« on: October 05, 2012, 12:00 »
82
« on: September 14, 2012, 11:36 »
There seems to be on and off issues with the servers and DeepMeta. I know Franky has reported issues with the servers. Many people reporting low or no views since the update.
Take a look at the Tools/App thread and the HQ thread in the discussion thread.
Short answer you are not alone.
83
« on: September 05, 2012, 21:02 »
They should also post what the artist gets out of the sale.
With all do respect, do you have a calculator? How you get paid You still get paid the same way: your current royalty percentage on each US Dollar spent downloading your files.
84
« on: September 05, 2012, 12:06 »
I don't think you are giving the buyer enough credit here.
I work with several magazines and they are pinching every penny because of their shrinking budgets. They buy both RM and RF they have to know what they are paying either by the single new DL or through the credit system.
The buyers with the credit purchases will obviously pay less than the shown amount for a direct buy. I think and hope that this will lead to some missed sales from buyers who did not want to buy excess credits for one or two images.
85
« on: September 05, 2012, 11:07 »
Got to make you wonder what the new buyers are thinking they got themselves into
86
« on: September 04, 2012, 21:19 »
The Glitch Monsters has eaten Jay
87
« on: September 04, 2012, 20:36 »
Why does he need two red pens? 
To note all the bugs on the site? 
88
« on: September 04, 2012, 20:28 »
Breathtakingly piss-poor design in that the text explanation of the issue, in several languages but in grey colour, cannot actually be read against the (same colour) background. Who are the amateurs that 'design' these things? Extraordinary.
have we calibrated our monitor recently
Irrelevant. The same colour is the same colour, contrast-wise, however you calibrate the monitor.
You need to check you browser settings or something because it is fine on my screen 
89
« on: September 04, 2012, 19:47 »
There's a blue drip in Jay's nose:)
OMG there is. You need to stop staring at Jay
90
« on: September 04, 2012, 19:16 »
"@michaeldeanart we'll be back live soon with some great new features! We picked a time with low site visitors to schedule the maintenance "
Really??? I thought the weekends and holidays were the slow time
91
« on: September 04, 2012, 17:55 »
Great WE pay for the site being down again and it is Jay's fault
92
« on: September 04, 2012, 15:34 »
Yeah, they did not do such a great job of letting buyers know that the site will be down for several hours. They hide the announcement in the Discussion Sticky and a post on Facebook, nothing on the home page or the new feed.
93
« on: September 04, 2012, 09:12 »
And the flood gates open, over 600 images and counting.
Question, why is the keyword "iPhoneS" allowed when there is no phone in the picture?
95
« on: August 30, 2012, 19:06 »
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving.
Comparison chart:
They have not changed from the revised 2011 targets http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873
96
« on: August 30, 2012, 19:03 »
"They didn't do it last year though when they revised the targets downwards, so doing it this year is a surprise to me."
I don't remember them not paying back money.
Yeah but this year their record of paying back royalties is not that great, as you know
97
« on: August 29, 2012, 17:29 »
Tuesday Sept 4? It does seem like an odd time to revamp the site. September 11 would have seemed more appropriate.
Or December 21st, either way next Tuesday is a bad idea, based on past performance.
98
« on: August 03, 2012, 12:48 »
I think it might be more successful if they started a dedicated art prints site and only selected stock photos that had some appeal. Are art buyers going to wade through millions of stock images that wouldn't look good as prints?
Yes exactly. Art and stock are two different things. There are times when I have come across really gorgeous stock images that might look good as a print, so they might have some sales for this. I wonder why, though, they don't focus their efforts and money on doing their STOCK image site correctly, instead of trying to diversify even more. 
I also agree, plus they need to FIX the current site first before adding any new features. This morning I had about 10 minutes of just white screens. Makes you wonder how many buyers went elsewhere, this time and all the other times.
99
« on: July 24, 2012, 12:39 »
Just say a couple new Images from Yuri in the recent uploads. Wonder if they did not meet his high standards on his own site. 
100
« on: July 19, 2012, 07:57 »
It seems to be an isolated case. I hardly get one, two refunds a month, on hundreds of downloads.
There has been a lot of complaints, maybe not at this scale, but most of the time the posts are deleted or locked, told to go ask CR. I was really surprised that they left this one open.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
