Well I guess we don't know that there should be an interface for re-application after some time. I wasn't rejected from SF, so have never looked in to it. I haven't read the faq, but if they say u should be allowed to apply again after a certain time then ur emails are valid. Your initial post without giving the details that you have done now, really was open to interpretation.

Quote from: mtkang on October 23, 2011, 08:58

but the status is always your application had been rejected. I have sent at least 2 emails by using the contact on website, but never got a single reply. Possible to help?

Yes. You have been rejected. What part of rejected don't you understand?   Living in the Far East, I know how hard it is for an Easterner to lose face, so I totally sympathize, sortof. It's something like "don't call us, we'll call you"   Just move on.

I don't think it's a question of losing face if he's talking publicly about how he's been rejected. It's more likely to be a question of I'm too good to be rejected, surely there must be some mistake. I'm sure u can correct me if u want mtkang. I think I got rejected by Veer 2 or 3 times, I never understood it, but whatever, my ports are small but for their size they do pretty well on ss, dt, 123rf and I'm not too concerned about being rejected by smaller sites, they're probably doing me a favour by saving my time. I was rejected by shutterstock 5 times too, I never wrote to them also but if I did I would understand if they didn't reply, they must get tons of mails from people asking them why they were rejected and they have a business to run, and enough mails to answer from active members.

Lots of Westerners do the lose face thing too by the way, they just react differently, for example being unable to concede an inch in an argument (especially forums), rather than just admitting the other person has a point. When you start seeing people go off the subject and correcting the other persons grammar for example, you just know that it's a case of being wounded and resorting to other methods to show that they're right. We all have egos and we can all feel embarrassed, hurt or feel that we have lost face, whether we are from the East or the West.

The content is really unimpressive.  Had a look at the "business" section and there's lots of photos that don't seem to have anything to do with business.  There's a lot of snapshots that really shouldn't be on a stock site.  Why would buyers want this?  Other sites have tried one price for one size and it doesn't attract buyers, they want more options.

It's nice having 50% commission and no payout level but it's pointless if there aren't going to be any buyers.

The 'business' section shows farm animals. I know it's still currently a test site, but that can be tested by the owner before going public with it. It's a nice looking site, but at this stage it seems evident that there isn't so much knowledge of the stock industry. Most guys here are contributors, but their knowledge is quite in-depth, I think often more than many of those who work for the agencies.

The images on the site at the moment generally aren't as good as present day microstock images and if you want microstock images on your site, why would a buyer pay 20 quid for it when they can buy microstock. There will always be people who happen to come across your site and not know about ss, dt etc, but most serious buyers are pretty savvy these days.

I can't help wondering if people have simply being scammed into handing over full rez files.

Sorry, I have to step in here. The owner advertised on my blog briefly. I believe that the guy is genuine about setting up a niche market place. He was/is a successful footage contributor at a couple of sites we all know. I'm more inclined to believe people who themselves are contributors and not simply businessmen who come in to the market wanting to grab some of the microstock pie. I'm sure he's been on a steep learning curve, as I don't imagine it is easy to set up a microstock site, but a lot of the microstock sites were in the same position when they started. He decided to take a different direction and if that was what he determined was the best direction, it was better he did it as soon as he did instead of a waiting a year or 2. We may not agree with this decision, but I'm sure the images he attained for his previous concept have been deleted.  

Quote from: lisafx on October 13, 2011, 09:51

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 13, 2011, 06:30

Not everyone agreed with Mr Bush's thinking, of course.

Very true.  Some of us even questioned whether it could be characterized as "thinking".  

Even so, he had a point, " better to prevent then cure"  by the time you have to cure something, its often too late.

Prevention is better than cure, so long as the 'intelligence' is up to scratch. I'm talking about ft of course.

I mainly concentrate on sites in the big 4. By the way who are ft? 

Quote from: Microstock Posts on September 09, 2011, 08:20

Quote from: oboy on September 09, 2011, 08:11

Why don't they just close down the site if that would be the case?

Good question. I just had a look at their whois info. and the domain expires Jul 2012, lasted updated Jun 2011. So maybe they do intend to continue, but their complete silence is strange to say the least.

At 10$ to renew a domain name for 1 year I am not sure it is a clear indicator that they would want to continue.

Yeah true. I had an offer there a couple of weeks ago. Someone offered $20 for a photo. It's not on any microstock sites and it was priced at $90. I replied with offering it for $45, but didn't hear back. Oh well.   

I still enjoy getting Els from my first dslr, which was a 6mp Pentax and I shot mostly with the kit lens, not to mention the 5 or 6 sales I had from it where my revenue was each worth $100 or more. Probably those who bought the licenses don't even know what camera the images were taken with.

Quote from: leaf on September 28, 2011, 13:44

Quote from: Gannet77 on September 28, 2011, 13:31

Just a thought, but how do you all know that chad_fotolia is the REAL Chad Bridwell?

He doesn't seem to be verified by Leaf...

fixed

I see Leaf isn't 'verified' either. How do we know this is the REAL Leaf?

Who's actually able to verify Leaf, assuming that it really is him, come to think of it. Hmmm?

'Admin' allows Leaf to make posts here and take on certain duties. Apparently they're very good friends.

Could I just butt into this and mention that, if I want to see which image just sold, I have to:

1.  Leave the monthly page I keep open to refresh and check the daily rate increase.
2.  Scroll to the footer at the bottom of the page and click 'More'
3.  Select 'Download' from the page I arrive at.
4.  Scroll to the bottom of that page to find the last page number on the list for that month.
5.  Click that page number and scroll through to see which images sold that day

... and they don't appear in sequential order, so then I have to try to remember which ones I've already seen to spot the new image(s).

That is FAR more longwinded than on any other agency I belong to, and surely it's a very obvious thing for contributors to want quick access to.

Unless of course I'm making things hard for myself and have missed something blindingly obvious.  

I'd love to be able to just click on today's date, on the earnings page, and immediately see the downloads for that day.

Apologies PedroV, for butting in.  I'll butt out again now.

It is a long process. The 'Download' should  at least be in the footer in the 'For Photographers' section instead of having to go to 'more'. Plus the availability of right clicks for links would be nice, ie. to open link in new tab. The only right click available is for the 123rf logo at the top of the page.

3 Els last month (small port, less than 200), but I think one person bought 2 of them. Far more than the usual amount of ODs this month. Big increase in sales all around for me, starting from the second week of September.

As I see it, it's basically having text and links on ur photos in a blog or site. There is an indicator on the part of the photo that u choose to say there is info there, and once someone hovers their mouse over the indicator the text/link appears and u get paid per click. It's kind of like what infolinks do with text. I can see this as being successful, especially as the images are given for free. I'd imagine most professional sites wouldn't want to use this though, infact this would appeal to those who steal images, as they can get a resource of free images and can make money from it.

Quote from: rubyroo on September 26, 2011, 05:11

I hope in time he'll put his skills towards something more constructive and less DEstructive.

Such as hacking into IS and FT and increase our royalties to the level that they should be.

Shall we make him an offer?