|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 79
801
« on: December 21, 2015, 14:36 »
I want to see results of the accusations and a investigation just like you. Haven't received my DACS for this year, it's direct deposit into my account. Makes me suspicious why an agency would get paid, not to artist. Makes me suspicious why BAPLA would want to collect for us when membership costs 350.00 per annum for associate.
exactly. it's like starting a war and telling the world we need to finance the production of scuds,etc... the photographers need to be a member to be "protected"; reminds me of the Union, who plots against the Corporation and tells the lowly paid employees they are underpaid and overwork, so quick join the Union. now we see the Union bosses still collecting big pay checks while continuing to tell the overpaid underworked Union members to go on strike every year for strike pay. same story different ppl, but there is a fool born every minute who believes the Union and all such things are there to work for your benefit 
802
« on: December 19, 2015, 22:33 »
Politics! BAPLA wants to take over from DACS and control distribution. They want to grab money and power claiming it's on behalf of members. What will follow is only BAPLA members will be paid.
Rex did this before they were owned by SS. Read the whole story before making a wrong conclusion or accusing people. This is a partial investigation of Rex and one employee embezzling with forgery, but people jump to accusing SS?
Read every word, then read this. http://tinyurl.com/qavypbt
naturally, there is a lot of money to grab from ss. to be honest, i don't trust those "collective" things like that collecting money on "our" behalf. much like those non_profit organizations , charity/donation, musician union and other union, whatever .. that put money first into their own admin's pocket and by the time the money reaches the ppl there is like 10% of the actually amount you donate or they collected. ..
803
« on: December 19, 2015, 13:36 »
Scrooge here !!!  the only christmas card i want from ss is my 102 bucks single earning commission everything else, Jon & co can keep it to themselves
804
« on: December 17, 2015, 18:38 »
750,000 + or - in a week. 225 reviewers. Do the math.
i suspect bots because i had tested it several time last month with one or two tricky iffy stuff in a batch of perfect focus. i know a human's eye would not see it, but the bot would. and sure enough those exceptions got pulled out and rejected. also, perfect focus but tricky lighting like you would get in a shot with specific point light with gobos, and true enough, they too got rejected as poor lighting or composition or out of focus. they were not oof nor were they poor lighting nor were they poorly composed. a human reviewer would have approved it as all points were spot on. so i am convinced bots are running the show. btw, what was that movie where the AI took over the city's traffic lights and tried to sabotage the govt??? one day ss will be taken over by this bot ...but then again, it won't matter because the ppl in there are already too stoned on marijuana
805
« on: December 17, 2015, 13:42 »
. . seriously, is it done by machine?
If you do the job, then you're at some point a "human machine". Otherwise you can not check thousands of photos every day.
... or reject a batch of xxx images in 5 minutes. either it is a bot or a human who pushes a button without even looking at each image.
806
« on: December 16, 2015, 20:16 »
And 1,016,200 are tomatoes. dont reviewers have a To many on site rejection reasons. When I reviewed they did.
old post, ..but i guess it applies. and marijuana i check Marijuana 49,163 i wonder in how many months it took to 49.1k vs tomato 1M
807
« on: December 16, 2015, 20:06 »
flawed humans click random and wrong reasons because they don't want to get caught clicking for quick money, that can be done without actually reviewing. We send them back again and hope to get a serious review from somebody who cares.
but that's just it... anyone with QC expertise will be able to instruct IT to produce a report to catch the reviewers who are not doing their job. you can tell by the persistent quick review per batch or the consistent OFF , bad lighting, poor composition. unless the mid-mgt are the ones who also don't care and is just clocking in for quick money too. india  is this your assumption or is it true that it is being outsource to india. could be too, since india has a lot of ganja 
808
« on: December 15, 2015, 18:20 »
134,000 weed images and over 1 million tomatoes as of today
1 million 700 tomatoes Now. Thats just Plain STUPID merchandising.Is that supposed to Impress stock Holders.
yes, if their accountant told them at shutterstock there is an stock inventory of 1 mil 700 tomatoes and a lot of marijuana. that is an impressive amount of inventory
809
« on: December 14, 2015, 20:52 »
if you consider that most of the rejections are words identically , i would go with mantis to say machines.
810
« on: December 14, 2015, 14:36 »
The guy who does the pot photos is uploading what he shot over the weekend. That ties up the servers for a while.
all 3 comments on mary jane +10 also, his complimentary box of weed must have arrived over the weekend and IT and mid-mgmt are all stoned out of their minds puffing the magic dragon  even if they send in Oringer's ppl, they would get high on 2nd hand smoke and nothing would be fixed  re wording of Vincent message "our tech team is regaining consciousness...
811
« on: December 14, 2015, 11:31 »
Valid points.
Nevertheless, it is hard to believe in a "flood" coming from people only able to pass 1/10 photos. I said it before, this is an endurance competition and many will give-up pretty soon, unable to cope with frustrations and low sales.
The "flood" is coming those "certified contributors" who uploaded 1 million tomato shots, 50.000 marijuana shots, 400.000 cloudscapes, 1.000.000 coffee shots, etc
But it is easier to blame others, to look down on beginners and call them "wannabees", than to acknowledge your own flaws.
excellent point yourself!!! even those who do not belong to ss want a stringent entrance test... i wonder why back to your point, looking from the thread on ss forum, you may be right, many 7/10-ers might not pass the 1/10 test today
812
« on: December 13, 2015, 14:03 »
It is obvious that a certain % of contributors, proud of their "SS contributor badge", might not pass a 7/10 exam, now (see those complaints about whole batches being rejected), especially since I believe that the entry exam implied at least two green lights from different reviewers.
If the rejection standards are kept high or further toughened, in SS eyes, there is no risk of extra quality dilution, even with the entry exam abolished.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
excellent comment. like the old drivers failing re-test due to failing eyesight, nerves, etc..that comes with old age even that reviewer who sees everything as OOF or poor composition or wrong WB... could do with an eye-examination
813
« on: December 13, 2015, 12:45 »
But what do you do with all these offended egos, who realized their SS contributor "badge of honor" means nothing  ?
badge of honor do mean nothing. it's not how many gets approved, or how 7/10 8/10,,9/10,10/10 got us inside... it's how many dls we get daily that counts. everything else is just noise. money sitting in an account is money ss cannot touch, i doubt it will be on their balance sheet as a credit, im 99% sure it is on the debit side. especially since they are a publicly traded company
correct, it is A/P so it is not considered as their money but money owing to be paid out. this one we should not even pick on ss because this applies to every one to the right column of this page. i don't know how many other agencies owe me $1 to $99 or whatever i haven't reached payout in years that i have forgotten and gave up on. to say ss is bad for this, we have to say everyone is bad for that too... from istock down to photaki (the last one on the list) inclusive. sure, we say ss makes millions,... but the other sites too... if they have $1 owing to a million ppl is also a million .
814
« on: December 12, 2015, 11:08 »
Great comment.
I'm still new to Microstock having only been playing for 6 months or a bit less. I'm not all that good, but even so I'm making consistent sales here and with other sites so I'm happy.
If this does indeed lower the quality of SS content, it can only be good for those of us that are making sales and produce reasonable stuff.. we'll stand out more...
That said, it did stroke my ego getting accepted into SS - now it's no achievement at all.
welcome to the great anal mythology of making millions with micro which is partly true though ... ss make millions we make peanuts seriously, i tell you i got in many years a go on 2nd try. but for many months although i got good ratio of approval my dls were not 7/10 at all. so really, it s not the 7/10 approval that is an achievement but the 10/10 daily downloads that matters. and as i said, even though these days i do get daily dls, i still manage to make millions of peanuts cumulative.. so really, to walk around bragging we all got 7/10 or more to be with ss is really no big stuff
815
« on: December 10, 2015, 19:08 »
His portfolio size is getting HIGHER and HIGHER 
LOL!!! Good one.
This guy must be a dealer !!
funny, i was just thinking the same thing. or more like, hey maybe it's ss new way of advertisement. you become a contributor with no reviewer couration, and you put the stuff you're dealing. this way, everyone knows who to contact when they need stuff!!!
816
« on: December 09, 2015, 17:48 »
Agree. Based on that automated review statement it seems they're lowering the entry standards and letting the pre-filter software take on a higher volume of individual image screening. This makes sense because I'm sure there are plenty of people who produce decent work but get wholesale rejected on the application review due to some images being questionable. These people will now be let in and the pre-screening software will handle the review at the image level.
The result will be that these new contributors will reject themselves. Meaning, if the pre-screening software constantly rejects a high percentage of someone's submissions they'll either improve their work or will stop submitting.
I think this change simply means that SS has become confident enough in the pre-screen software that the entry review is no longer relevant.
So the image quality requirements may not have changed but this definitely will cause a spike in new image volume.
agree to all and before. there is definitely an auto review based on some technical level, not sure what, but i suspect this is like the histogram we refer when we shoot to check if our exposure etc is good or now. also there could be a reference as to each of our own ratio of approval vs rejection. those of us who edit ourselves have i am sure high ratio of approval, which will no doubt help us through the auto review. those who have been complaining about 100% rejection etc could well be those who upload as many images daily as i do in months, or as someone mentioned here "gawd i don't even upload that many in a year, how do you manage to upload this many in a week"| or something like that. the other thing is also, ss stand to lose out to adobe if they let some genius slip by with the 7/10. as i said before, we all know how bad we were at the beginning. .. or even the yuri arcurs,etc. we know how easy it is to upload to fotolia (adobe), so to say adobe is the new ss, is absolute bollocks . it's more about gaining new contributors and also keep the existing contributors who can change with the times. we all know the same old same old does not apply anymore. because the clients have already got so many of those same old same old in their inventory why would they be looking for more? also, there could be a new market player in the globe and north america may not be the main buyers now for ss. so a new mentality could be needed if we intend to sell more or maintain our monthly sales figures.
817
« on: December 08, 2015, 18:00 »
"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."
+1
The other thing SS has going for them (like other sites) is that they have A LOT of excellent contributors who simply don't pay attention to what's really happening or are in areas where a little money means a whole lot. That segment of suppliers probably isn't going away. If everyone who knows what's happening were to pull their ports, it would not make much difference to the collection because there is plenty of good stuff to replace deletions. It unfortunate but it's a fact.
not sure which if i edited correctly , if not, sorry. but this is the thing that seems to be prevelant here on msg. inconsistency . what i mean is , only not long ago when rejections were high, many old guys were up with their pitchforks saying "the bar lifted too high already, for the kind of money you pay us". so now, they lower the bar to very low, and still the voice is shouting saying "the bar is too low". like cathy, i think , says, micro was never meant for "pros" using expensive cameras to shoot. if not the cameras, but more the cost of production. i also remember how someone also said we should be smarter at what we upload as it would be insane to upload works that cost an arm and a leg to produce. but really, we all know it was never meant for any of us to be paid a lot of money from micro, so we are flipping back and forth on our own expectation from ss. i think until someone else comes along to give us as often dls and payout as ss, i would hold my breath on going to macro or anyone who has not proven they can even be as productive as dreamstime; and we know how reliable that is. looking on the right side, we still see all those long existing agencies still barely hitting past 30 . so i won't be expecting anyone coming out or coming up to compete against ss. for now, i will keep my own bar high, and use this lowering of the bar as a chance to actually stand out above the rest. it's like the real world, you know.. when you see lots of ppl not caring about getting a good job. we still don't say, "oh... that's bad for me... if so many of them doing care about aiming higher" . same applies to ss, you know. what worry what the others do... it's really only us, what we do, if we earn more or less in 2016 with ss... with millions of 1/10 entries and thousands of marijuanas ... don't really matter anyway. ..should it???
818
« on: December 07, 2015, 18:32 »
Or they could be increasing the value of their premium service. The more junk there is to wade through the more sense it will make for buyers to pay the extra for help searching. We could even see the search engine get worse so they can keep the best algorithm for their own premium team.
That's a possibility. My own cynical point of view is that at this stage in the life cycle of a public company, every decision is ultimately based on the stock price, which in turn is based on big "numbers" put up in front of investors. So SS wants to be able to announce that they've increased the size of the collection by some ungodly amount, and also signed up more customers for premium search, and those two goals fit together.
They also want to announce that they've increased the number of contributors by some large number, and this could explain the lowering of the entrance bar. I think it's actually just that simple.
i think i understand what both of you say, but excuse me if i don't. what you miss me is that premium service or premium search. what is that??? is this still with ss or is it offset? another thing is maybe ss wants clients to go to offset so they can start paying higher prices, and contributors earn higher too. but wonder if we too can move to offset and offer higher cost images. for now, with ss, i think we maybe see an opportunity too, a challenge of us old guys ... by coming up with quality stuff . if as everyone say the dilution of inventory, then it will be obvious clients will notice you if your work stand out over those who come in without 7/10. only trick is being seen by the clients. i think once the client find our portfolio there can be an opportunity for increased sales once the quality dilution begins.
819
« on: December 06, 2015, 20:34 »
While it's hard to say what the real effect of this change will be, it's even harder to imagine the intent. Things seemed to have stopped making sense, from a contributor's viewpoint, a long time ago.
The bar is low. Some time goes by. Ooops, now the bar is high, everything is rejected for 'lighting'. Now it's really, really high, and your photos have LCV. But look, here are 10,000 nearly identical icons. And 10,000 dopey photos of a bag of pot. Guess there isn't any 'bar'. And now, the entrance exam has been made really easy. How does that fit in? Who knows. And, speaking for myself: at 36 cents a sale, who cares anymore.
i get what you mean. to me, it makes a lot of sense that there is one specific reviewer who will reject everything you give as "poor lighting" , even the good ones with "poor composition"... simply because your work has nothing to do with marijuana as for the rest of the reviewers, i find it consistent. you get rejections which you knew was iffy when you uploaded it, but you just wanted to push the envelope and add something different for your portfolio. but for the majority, it still get approved because there is nothing wrong with any of them. ... and yes, they sell too. i know that, because lately, i quietly wait a little while, and resubmit without that "previously submitted " note, and they all got approved. but what i still haven't figured out is when this marijuana reviewer works, so i can time it nicely and not have to waste my time re-submitting when the bozo is not working.
820
« on: December 06, 2015, 16:07 »
Everyone thinks the world is ending, because Shutterstock facilitates the entrance test. But what about Fotolia? They never had a test. And I think the quality of the image material is not so different.
People upload the same pictures everywhere and the agencies take what they want. Entrance exam does nothing if the reviews are like they are on SS. Now people who can't pass will upload and get rejected and find out why they don't pass the exam.
finally, we agree !!!
821
« on: December 06, 2015, 13:01 »
Well, I've been bit by the deletion bug too. Last time I looked, I had 1800 images, now I have 1300. I only looked because my last sale was not showing a thumbnail in the sales list. BTW, there's no way to see the missing images, right?
sorry to hear that SLP. but at least Canva shows wearing a badge of honors does not immunize you from their curation but giving them the benefit of the doubt, as i do with ss new formula no 7/10 need to apply, i am wondering if those 500 are old stuff that have been saturated with your former exclusive IS and now with ss. can it be that maybe canva is looking to trim off fat so they cut cost of bandwidth etc not to have to inventory cannibalized portfolios. just wondering. i try to look at it from their side of the mountain. or maybe i am just looking for alternative for 2016 and like to give Lee the benefit of the doubt. of course, it will be better if they just come here like ALamy and let us know , so we don't have to keep speculating the wrong notion.
822
« on: December 05, 2015, 22:06 »
OK, a lot of you know that in 10+ years and 47,000+ Posts with 90% being on the critique forum and Let me add selling My Images for 30 Plus years, Involved in stock Longer than any employee at SS. I completely disagree with this Move. The overall Talent Level as I see it has dropped tremendously in the last year, Big time in last 3/6 months and Im sure no One at SS has tracked this....I have. These changes and others are simply Not the SS I knew and supported. They were a "Class act" and something folks worked Hard for to be part of. It's all Going away.
"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."
+1
the question is ... which macro are you going to??? i don't know any macro who is not out to be doing what micro is paying. and the only macro i know is getty and i don't hear too many ppl being happy there either. adobe , being fotolia , is not a threat to ss; anymore than what veers used to appear like some new messenger of good hope which we now came to nothing. same for canva. as for accepting crap (to quote our fellow commentor before here), that is not going to help anyone submitting crap. the issue is not getting approved but getting dl and i don't know any clients who is going to pay for crap. do you??? like it or not, ss is still our only seller and earning of $$$. they can change the admission criteria but that's not going to affect any of us. at least, the way i see it, sales have in fact gone up ...not down , even with the absence of $80, $102 single earnings. don't know where ss is planning to go, but since we are already contributors, the only issue for me is the large dl-able poorly watermark issue. the rest don't affect us ,really.
823
« on: December 05, 2015, 15:39 »
I asked it an another thread and got no response. Can anyone tell me what the terrible changes with the new agreement are? Just a link to the thread discussing it would suffice. Thanks.
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87314-change-to-our-initial-review-process/?pl=SubGF
"terrible" might be a bit strong. I think that alot of people are concerned with the idea of essentially eliminating any sort of quality control on new submitters. Based on what has been submitted to the review forum from new contributors who have a minimal grasp on photography let alone stock photography you could expect that there will be many more really poor images being thrown on the pile. This wouldn't be as big of a problem if the review process was consistent and robust but it isn't. Personally, I would have preferred SS working on improving the review process even if that involves lower overall acceptance rates. This change appears to indicate that they are taking the exact opposite approach. Having an increase in low quality images can't help reviewers do their jobs better.
just as paulie said back there, no need for 7/10 application does not mean lax reviewing. it only means ss is going to be accepting anyone to submit images . after all, which other site does 7/10 initial application? not even adobe does that. to assume ss is going to accept anything, i guess we will have to start uploading again to test see if they indeed are going to accept crap (as chichikov think they are going to accept). other than weed , i do not think anti non-weed crappola images will be passed through without rejection possibility at the gate. but we will have to see if this is true but reading the ss forum or here to see if 100% crap will now be accepted. i don't think so, as they are looking to hire new ppl for reviewing team
824
« on: December 04, 2015, 16:30 »
39084 of weed. This is a conspiracy. Obviously someone at the top at SS LOVES marijuana and all such pictures will be approved. I think I'm going to make a series of marijuana people, animals and nature backgroundswhich will include variations as website buttons.
Sorry to change the subject.
it's not a conspiracy. john used to call it a "revolution"... but he really meant "revelation"... but he was too stoned to pronounce "revelation"...so it came out as "revolution". psst. actually the marijuana dude is a major shareholder... who owns a cash crop
825
« on: December 04, 2015, 16:26 »
After Shtterstock's new agreement update nothing really matters if you upload images onto Shutterstock as a contributor. I will never put another new image or file on Shutterstock for as long as I live. I've been on there 9 years and I'm not letting a couple hundred each month lure me into uploading any new images onto such an evil company! Someday someone braver then me will spill the beans. Good luck to anyone uploading onto Shutterstock.
Evil??? No.
evil??? no!!! weed is not evil in a nutshell, how do you expect someone on weed to pass 7/10 they want weed photos. they like weed. the more weed contributors the merrier the office will be, and the less anal the reviewer like atilla and family will be. so all in all, a win for ss, a win for reviewer atilla and family, a win for you and me there will be less need to weed out the good and the bad and the ugly
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
