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 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 91
876
« on: May 01, 2015, 18:05 »
It was my best month this year - about on par with the average monthly income last year. SS sales were a bit lower in # but I actually had a good number of ODD compared to normal. The thing that made the difference was 2 good Alamy sales. April 2014 was my 3rd worst month that year though, so at least I beat that this year. None of the regular earning sites were particularly high or low compared to last years average - although especially Alamy was quite good for this year.
I think if you are taking the $/day average then the number of weekends and holidays per month will be a significant factor.
877
« on: April 28, 2015, 15:39 »
I just analyzed a collection of all images that I had uploaded in 2014... took the total amount of income, divided it by the number of images, and then by the #of months (16 since jan 2014) and the results were a tiny bit better than my Q1 images R.P.I.
That's probably not an accurate way of gauging it, but it's something. For instance, some images were uploaded in January, while others were uploaded near the end of the year. Some were live in the collection much longer.
Paralysis of analysis. On a positive note, I've uploaded more images in Q1 2015 than all of 2014. Time for me to go edit some more and feed the beast before I end up losing my afternoon to youtube or social media.
I have made collections on SS of images uploaded each year. it is interesting. I totally agree that things would be super painful without the income from legacy uploads.
878
« on: April 23, 2015, 23:20 »
One of the first times this happened my uploads were indexed right before about a week of no new images indexed. Luckily for me I had just uploaded a pretty good image that was seasonally in demand. It was on the first line of the "newest first" search for that term. After that fortunate (for me) week it was on the first line of the default search for a year or more - in fact I think it was somewhere in the first 3 lines for about 4 years until they changed the search which made it disappear for a few weeks and then it re-appeared on the second page which cut downloads to less than 1/2 of what they were.
We have no control over this sort of thing, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it doesn't make a difference in some instances.
879
« on: April 23, 2015, 15:11 »
so does it drop site ranking on search from a large screen, or only in the search from a small screen (which makes sense, since you might not want to see a non-mobile friendly page on your mobile device)?
880
« on: April 23, 2015, 12:45 »
what i see is $, and when i take a look on total $ - for me, it does not look promising at the moment.
just an illustration (GI downloads for one of my files from s+ collection):
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Site Royalty 01/07/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD 01/08/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD 01/09/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD 01/10/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD 01/11/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD 01/12/2014 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD 01/01/2015 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
I wonder if that is from the embedded viewer thing... Or just some other way to screw the artists.
881
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:12 »
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...
883
« on: April 21, 2015, 16:14 »
I hope most photo buyers aren't searching for images from their phones though...
884
« on: April 21, 2015, 13:19 »
yes, me too... even love the stupid capcha with frigging pictures. as if the illegible words were not bad enough...whose twisted idea is this???
they (the captcha people) are trying to figure out how to determine if a user is a real person in new and sometimes annoying ways. One is to monitor how you move the mouse (notice that you can't tab to the "I am a real person" check box). I wonder if SS pays them to annoy us or if they pay SS for that honor. re: SS and IS, it always seemed like IS and FT were leading the screw the contributor charge with <20% to the artists. SS was clever, stingy, greedy (you name it) enough to start out with about 30% to the artist when many other sites were at 50%. At least they haven't substantially reduced it (perhaps until now).
885
« on: April 21, 2015, 12:46 »
They blow stockfresh out of the water, but still aren't very good for me unless I get an EL - which is becoming very rare.
886
« on: April 16, 2015, 16:16 »
What I don't get is the continued sarcasm directed at SS specifically. iS pays lowers royalties to independents. I only get 28 for subs sales at iS.
As I've pointed out before, most of us can't be represented by Getty, and microstock opened up new markets and broader representation. Why MACRO photographers come to MICROstock Group and continually post jabs at MICROstockand specifically SS, which is the big earner for most peopleis beyond me.
You don't see any sarcasm directed at iStock, you're one of the main purveyors of that sort of thing. I think people can dislike both companies why does anyone have to like one or other?
Why are you here? Seriously. This is Microstock Group. And I'm sarcastic about iS because I wish they'd do better. When they screw up it costs me money. You?
I'm here because I do this for my living, it's important to me what happens not only on iStock but in the industry as a whole.
how can I make a living slagging SS on microstock group?
887
« on: April 13, 2015, 12:51 »
last batch 100% rejected for light, noise, and focus. I can understand the grain on the pics of sand dunes, but otherwise...
888
« on: April 07, 2015, 15:06 »
Their approvals/rejections seem pretty random to me too. I don't even bother to attempt to make sense of them anymore.
If they were a big earner I'd be more concerned.
889
« on: April 02, 2015, 15:53 »
here is a new rejection reason...
"We are currently only accepting coins/buttons/logos/symbols submitted in sets, not as individual images. Thank you."
I guess selling one image for .35 is just too much now.
890
« on: April 01, 2015, 16:36 »
not so great for me, only one worse month (last Nov) going back to 2011. SS did ok, 123RF back on track after pathetic last month. P5 decent (for them), but overall rather disappointing.
I guess there will be a miniscule bump when I add in Istock and then the PP and whatever else shows up over the next month or so.
891
« on: March 31, 2015, 17:27 »
Wouldn't it be easier (and faster, more correct finding answer) to ask the source? 
In my experience asking questions of companies you either get ignored, get a canned response that may or may not have anything to do with the question, or get some vague marketing speak sort of answer that doesn't really answer anything. Unfortunately I don't even really consider that as a valid way to get an answer anymore. What a sad state of affairs. It is odd to get more sales this month than the previous 4 months combined, but since they are almost all subs the total isn't worth writing home about.
892
« on: March 24, 2015, 23:09 »
I have been having a lot of distribution subs this month, not just one day, but a few almost every day. Not that it is a lot in the grand scheme of things, but on the order of the same amount as the previous 4 months added up.
Anyone else - is there a new "partner"? someone selling them for big bucks and we get subs?
893
« on: March 22, 2015, 18:02 »
I was under the impression that excess heat caused excess noise. Thus when it is cold you would get less noise?
In astronomy they cool the sensors with liquid nitrogen. I presume that isn't to add noise.
In general as long as you can deal with the longer exposure a low iso seems to give better results. Even better if nothing is moving would be taking a bunch of images and stacking them.
894
« on: March 22, 2015, 17:59 »
Long enough that I don't really know how long it is. I assume 3-4 weeks.
895
« on: March 19, 2015, 00:10 »
Different source, different numbers about web traffic. According to this article, Facebook drives 25% of traffic.
"Social media platforms are eating every other traffic sources lunch. Formerly, organic search (i.e. Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.) made up the lions share of overall visits to sites.
In 2014, the tables turned.
Data (which we also shared with BuzzFeed) confirms, The shift from search to social isnt just in progress: its already here. Collectively, the top 8 social networks drove 31.24% of overall traffic to sites in December 2014, up from 22.71% the same time last year."
https://blog.shareaholic.com/social-media-traffic-trends-01-2015/
Eh. Who knows?
I think social media links are key for the sorts of sites that use clickbait and "top X # of pics of whatever" as well as news and repackaged news light. I sincerely doubt they are anywhere near as important for online sales of say stock images.
896
« on: March 18, 2015, 19:17 »
So far no details have been given, and the details are what will make the difference to us.
One of the great things about SS in the past was that any image could rise or fall on its merits and unlike many sites it wasn't based on how the artist did overall or subject to the whims of random search changes. That is somewhat no longer true. If this means that if you aren't in the club you get almost no big SODs, that will be unfortunate for everyone that doesn't make the club.
897
« on: March 18, 2015, 19:06 »
Why I would ever want to increase IS SEO is beyond me, but it might be worth it at some site that pays a better rate...
I also wondered about the 64% from organic searches. That might be some sort of web wide statistic since it is "according to Conductor" who probably are in the business of selling SEO. I sincerely hope any stock selling place gets a higher percentage from internal searches.
898
« on: March 18, 2015, 18:21 »
I think last year Alamy sold 300,000 licences
300,000 from a collection of 55 M!
SS sells 4 licences EVERY SECOND!!
So SS sells more licences in 1 day then A sells all year
correct but you need a lot of licences to compete with one alamy licence. My rpd was around 19 dollars
Don't get me wrong I would love Alamy to be successful, as the rpd is definitely better, but sales are far and few between, at least for me It seems that the sales are generated more toward the Euro based togs perhaps because their content is more suited toward A clients I am in North America so my images may not be in as much demand, hence the fewer sales
I think the quotes above might not be attributed correctly, but wasn't the reason they cut us from 60% to 50% of a sale (or less for distributors) to open a N America office to increase sales there (not that I've seen that actually happen though).
899
« on: March 17, 2015, 10:38 »
I am guessing the average subs buyer uses more like 200 a month, so nowhere near 750. I don't know if their habits will change if they change the daily limit or not. Probably not much. It might make for a bulge at the end of the month though.
900
« on: March 11, 2015, 15:29 »
I wish they actually put the info in some sort of useful format instead of the high glitz low info format they did. For instance. List the top 10 countries ordered by payouts and number of contributors - or list them all. Have a graph with number of items for sale compared to payouts. etc.
I can see why they might not want to reveal that data, but as it is they are only providing a few chosen points that don't really say much. For instance, they list countries 3 and 5, but not any of the other top ones. I was surprised how little they pay out to the US though.
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 91
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|