|
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 - pancaketom
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 91
801
« on: November 02, 2016, 16:49 »
They either need to tell us they don't care and make it open season or else drop the boom on these spammers.
There are hundreds if not thousands of images that would be suitable for most buyers, search placement is what makes the difference between a sale and nothing. If spamming can get you onto the first page it appears to be well worth it.
I bet if SS did just a few searches and disabled the obviously spammed image ports they saw on the first page we would see a huge drop in this problem - they obviously are not willing to do this.
802
« on: November 01, 2016, 22:44 »
Sadly I think SS got rid of the actually useful tool that would show a graph of search terms over the year - as I recall there was a big spike for Christmas in November up to just a few days before the 25th. I think with web advertising the 6 month lead time no longer holds true. I do recall selling Christmas pics just a few days after the holiday though.
803
« on: November 01, 2016, 02:38 »
My SS was 42% of Oct 2015 (which was a good month). October 2016 was a bit low even for this year - so a lousy month.
Overall a rather poor month too - so sadly pretty typical for this year.
804
« on: October 30, 2016, 22:44 »
I'm about 1/7 of last month (which was a good month for them) and maybe 1/4 of what passes for normal there now. I have been having multiple week days in a row with no sales or just one measly sub. It is pretty sad and still a far cry from the promised doubling of sales.
I am also sad to see the useful information that was available in the old contributor pages gone.
805
« on: October 25, 2016, 14:43 »
old istock - we have this really arcane and basically impossible way to keep your earnings percentage above the industry low 15% base
New istock - never mind - you all just get 15%
I deleted my port down to almost nothing years ago - and my earnings reflect that. At least this new exciting news won't hurt me much.
806
« on: September 06, 2016, 11:34 »
Mine only shows 2012 sales for Jan and then flatlines the rest of the year.
It does clearly show no doubling of sales when that was promised to go along with our hefty percentage cuts with the RC system when it was implemented.
At least we can get more info without dealing with the "you will not see this page unless you have logged out" Captcha annoyance.
807
« on: August 26, 2016, 16:43 »
I removed my stuff when it was going to get sent somewhere else where they would pay us less. I did like the original though... Come to think of it I think the only site I really didn't like back then was iStock/Getty.
808
« on: August 14, 2016, 23:34 »
New image earnings have been particularly weak for me for a while (like a year?), but I have been pretty busy so haven't uploaded much. There isn't much motivation to upload though when new stuff doesn't much sell. Old stuff seems to sell a bit, but I haven't had a good day yet this month and I notched up another 0 day today - I went a number of years without them, but now they are back. (over 3,000 LCV to MCV images for sale).
As an aside I sorted my port by age and the results had nothing to do with age as far as I could tell - what kind of new algorithm is this?
809
« on: June 12, 2016, 13:27 »
All the captchas succeed in doing is inducing anger.
I think when they are getting you to do free work for them (I wonder how much they pay SS for our labor) in selecting for example water if you pick an image then they put a new image to get you to do more work (and supposedly this would be harder for a computer to do). This way you have to keep doing it 'til all the water images are gone (possibly with 2 or 3 clicks in the same image space).
This is nearly impossible when you have low bandwidth and poor connectivity. I wish we could all just type 000 every time a number is required - if enough people did it they would accept it (for a while).
810
« on: June 05, 2016, 17:38 »
It is down a ton, but I expect a few more sales in the rest of the year that should make it a little less dire.
811
« on: June 05, 2016, 17:35 »
I just got one too - I don't think it changed much from what I reported, but I guess I need to make sure. incompetents.
812
« on: June 05, 2016, 17:32 »
well, no way to change that wrong response that I can see... 2012 was nowhere near the peak, but I am down to 2.7% compared to 2010 and before. Of course deleting most of my images might have something to do with it. I am down about 27% overall since 2012. I think my motivation has dropped a lot more though.
813
« on: May 18, 2016, 16:09 »
I do remember quite a while ago they were needing PR for horses - which are probably pretty recognizable to horse people. I would think that if it is a prize winning cow at a fair that might be an issue, but if it is just another head of cattle out in a field somewhere it seems pretty unlikely. I am sure some people could recognize their trees or flowers, so it could get pretty ridiculous if they continue down this path.
814
« on: May 13, 2016, 18:24 »
I wonder if some of the Alamy people are reporting the sale price instead of their take. Still, based on my experience #2 for Alamy is reasonable.
815
« on: May 01, 2016, 13:02 »
I would if they doubled sales like they promised when they cut our percentage.
816
« on: April 20, 2016, 16:59 »
I have a problem with their stupid captcha I'm not a robot but we'd like to make you do some work for us thing. pisses me off every time. (and it is hell with a slow or spotty internet connection).
817
« on: March 14, 2016, 15:56 »
I had one last year - after a month or 2 they got a refund on a $250 sale and the same image was bought that day for $195 - I presume it was the same buyer and they got some sort of discount and made it retro-active. It still beats .38 by a wide margin but is pretty frustrating. I also have some long standing unpaid sales that Alamy said they will probably never recover.
818
« on: March 05, 2016, 18:55 »
I got over 1K from their dash for cash and had decent (for me) sales in 2011 and 2012. They have slipped a lot since then. RIP.
819
« on: November 16, 2015, 12:02 »
I had a panic moment seeing that last week. I checked the individual images (on their own page) and they still had their keywords.
In other news when I was trying to find a specific image to see if I had uploaded a batch I was not very impressed with the search.
820
« on: November 13, 2015, 14:58 »
How about they are the .08 cents owed to you for the .30 SODs earlier in the month?
Could be - they are the same images. if so, A for fixing it, F for communication
821
« on: November 13, 2015, 14:55 »
Yeah two .08 SOD sales for me today too. My earlier <sub ones were .30. Based on the images I'm guessing Facebook sales. I tried to get to the SS forum page but it never loaded for me.
822
« on: November 12, 2015, 14:40 »
I don't like large previews with weak watermarks because they are pretty easy to steal but if I were into stealing images I am guessing that many can be found in similar or larger resolutions without the watermark in other ways and people set against buying images are unlikely to buy much. The serious thieves have sub accounts or fake credit cards or just get images from other sources.
I wonder if the real issue and reason that sites are going this way is because now users can just grab the watermarked previews and no longer need to even get subs for their previews. Especially with the push towards pseudo sub plans where every use costs this could be a way to attract buyers with our content without having to pay us for their use (at least at first). Once the project gets the go ahead we get a few sales but perhaps in the past we would have more sales with multiple previews. I suppose it also serves as site advertising (without paying us) if the comp images are seen widely.
823
« on: November 11, 2015, 17:42 »
I always figured they kept them so that if you were a blatant serial resubmitter they would have evidence of it. It does sound like a lot of work to remove them probably by laziness and poor programming rather than design though.
824
« on: November 10, 2015, 13:28 »
Not a particularly good sign for people counting on them. Their debt is holding them back almost as much as their repeated boneheaded moves. Or maybe it is the other way around.
IS certainly could have owned micro and midstock with a few more clever and less greedy moves.
825
« on: November 09, 2015, 23:18 »
As usual, the devil is in the details. Is this going to be one of those shady deals where a distributor sells an image for big bucks and we get a sub sale amount?
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 91
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
