pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - seeker

Pages: [1]
1
General Stock Discussion / Re: paranoid? maybe
« on: October 23, 2007, 16:52 »
I think they'll do whatever makes sense to make more money both for the company and individual reviewer.

Why wouldn't it be possible for agencies to rate contributors based on sales probability to give preference to "VIPs"? Casinos do it. Airlines do it.

If you have person A who has a 90%+ approval rate, submits a ton of stuff, and sells a ton of stuff, and person B who has a 50% acceptance rate and doesn't sell a whole lot, wouldn't it make sense to spend more time on the As and leave the Bs in the review que until As are taken care of? Or have the As show up higher in searches? The agency would make more money spending time on As.

How well would a photographer do if they spent equal time on the Big 6 and the other 50 new sites? Of course you give preference to what makes you more money. Certainly the agencies do too.

Ok, but don't they have an obligation to you the contributor, one facet upon which their business is built, to give you equal unhindered access to as many sales as possible?

2
General Stock Discussion / Re: paranoid? maybe
« on: October 22, 2007, 18:57 »
Most popular = most downloads  :)
....... That's why those files stay at the top, they are the most popular images.... designers/buyers determine this, not the site.

I don't buy this statement. I have seen multiple images amongst the popular images that have their equal or better.


3
General Stock Discussion / Re: paranoid? maybe
« on: October 22, 2007, 16:39 »
More paranoia,
What if employees of SS have family or friends work were in the mix? Is it not likely their images could and would be favored?

There could be reasons that we are unaware of for them to do this kind of favoritism.

I once worked for a company where I found from the statements of a self proclaimed media mogul, that many news stories and information delivered to the public through the media was often actually just an underhanded way to promote products, companies and ideas to the population. True story. I personally was shocked to find that this was done.





4
General Stock Discussion / Re: paranoid? maybe
« on: October 19, 2007, 10:55 »
Yeah I felt it too! Im not sure!
Wanna be carefull with  false accusations though!

Just a discussion. Perhaps all the microstocks do this sort of thing.

5
General Stock Discussion / Re: paranoid? maybe
« on: October 19, 2007, 10:51 »
What do you mean by 'manipulating'? Making sure that certain members' images come higher in a search? Approving their images more easily? Inspecting their images more quickly? Or something else?

Both.
One of the reasons I believe this may be true. If you look at the most popular images. Certain images always remain in the top. This is true although there are many very good similar images.

6
General Stock Discussion / paranoid? maybe
« on: October 19, 2007, 00:06 »
I am basically basing this on a hunch, but has anyone else had any suspicions about SS manipulating their market, giving certain members an advantage and others not so much?

I would  very much like to hear what you think about this.
 Would this be advantageous to them in any way to control the market?  If I am correct would this be ethical on their part?


Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors