|
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 - IRCrockett
51
« on: November 24, 2006, 19:42 »
Rounding to the nearest whole percent...
47% Shutterstock
15% Istock
11% Dreamstime
8% Stockxpert
6% Fotolia
5% BigStock
4% 123RF
3% FeaturePics
1% CanStock
1% Lucky Oliver
Dreamstime was ahead of Istock for awhile but Istock pulled back ahead after the controlled vocabulary addition.
52
« on: November 24, 2006, 19:27 »
I cant remember where I read it but I think the views numbers are misleading as they were excluding the crawlers from Google etc.
That's a good thing. Otherwise the number of views would be inflated.
53
« on: November 18, 2006, 10:50 »
the cost is per semestral .. whatever that is Six months
54
« on: November 18, 2006, 10:47 »
Yep, I get one every year.
55
« on: November 17, 2006, 15:14 »
Not to hijack but it's sort of related.... How long does it take StockXpert to cut a check? It's been saying pending for over a week now. Is this normal for them? This will be my first StockXpert payout.
56
« on: November 13, 2006, 17:51 »
I always chuckle at 123 minimal commercial value when the picture has been DLed a few times at SS by the time 123 review it.
Or 10 times and a $20 Extended License as I had with one image 123RF rejected. As for StockXpert, I haven't noticed them being too picky. They've rejected 3 out of 128. One for being "Photo too dark", one for "Photo too similar", and the last one I don't remember but it didn't strike me as rude. I agree though if I got a "please improve quality" I would be tempted to tell them to stuff it.
57
« on: October 04, 2006, 22:32 »
I either list my photos as "isolated" or "isolated and with clipping path" so my vote is for isolated being the first.
58
« on: September 28, 2006, 21:46 »
Only 6.2 lbs. From the looks of it I would have thought it was heavier. Of course that doesn't take into account the storage system you'd also carry with you but that could be in a backpack.
If I had the extra cash I would totally get one.
EDIT: The more I think about this... at 300DPI you'd end up with a print 25" tall and 71" long. That would just about be perfect for over my couch!
59
« on: September 26, 2006, 14:55 »
What's up with "istock news" and all the December 31st, 1969 post flood? Posting bot or new site feature?
60
« on: September 23, 2006, 18:49 »
Can't comment as to sales but all of my 10D images have been accepted. I've used both stair interpolation and bicubic.
61
« on: September 19, 2006, 00:35 »
hmmm... now that I think about it. Perhaps Dreamstime infiltrated Istock and hatched this idea. Yep, it must be an evil plot by Dreamstime. No other rational explanation.
62
« on: September 18, 2006, 20:18 »
Going to?
63
« on: September 18, 2006, 17:39 »
Better yet, send out an email. I find the site, well, awkward, to use and annoying to navigate so I don't typically spend much time there except to upload and check sales. After hearing about the snafu here I went over there to check their forums. After the shock of reading the people praise this move I noticed that one of them mentioned a keyword wiki. Thinking it was announced and I just missed I began looking. Never did find such an announcement but I did see an interesting quote....
"Some of our images have great keywords, and some don't. We've spent a long, long time developing different methods of addressing this issue (Seriously, a long time. Like, months), but in the end, we decided that no one knows better than all of you. So now you can get involved with the keywords here at iStock."
... just struck me as funny. I guess since 6/30/2006 when this was posted they must have changed their mind.
64
« on: September 18, 2006, 15:29 »
In other words, we don't care how many of your images we screwed up, you will have to fix them yourself. In that thread a person asked what I was thinking... how exactly do you fix it? Seems like you click edit then have to write a reason why the keyword is not correct then somebody will review it? Sounds like it will take forever to fix all the errors. If somebody knows an easier way please let me know.
65
« on: September 18, 2006, 15:26 »
I've had a couple sales today. Both were images of pumpkins. Unless of course the keywords are to be believed, then they were either "Large Group of Animals", "Large Group of People", "Atlantic Ocean", "Showing", "Remote", "Figurine", or "Traditional Culture".
66
« on: September 18, 2006, 15:07 »
"Phrases need to be entered as single tags. If someone searches for "nursing home" as a single tag, and you have "nursing" and "home" entered as two separate tags, it will not appear in the search. You need to add the phrase as a tag."
Bullsh@t.
Bull is right. I had phrases in many images and they've split them up into individual words.
67
« on: September 18, 2006, 15:03 »
FUBAR.
To reply to an earlier post, I am a programmer, and you don't roll out a new version to the masses like this without serious testing. And that means beta testing with live users.
You also don't roll it out on the live system before seeing the effects on the test system. It would seem that they didn't bother to set up a few test servers populated with real data to see the effects.
68
« on: September 17, 2006, 11:43 »
Why hide it? It's perfectly legit. He's providing a service and should get paid something for it. Exactly the point. Why remove the status bar information so that one can plainly see what a link is and why not allow comments about referrals. If I found a new micro through him I would be happy to sign up with his link. Just seems odd that there was extra effort made to hide them.
69
« on: September 16, 2006, 18:04 »
I've wondered how much of his revenue was from his photos and how much was from the referrals. I posted a comment asking that and also wondering why he was attempting to hide the fact that they are referral links instead of regular links. The comments are moderated though so it never appeared and I never received an answer. Like I said in the comment I have no problem with following a referral link if it turns out to be a good deal but it seems sketchy when a person tries to hide the fact that it's a referral.
70
« on: September 14, 2006, 10:20 »
As far as Dreamstime goes, ... Another building rejected as 'we have too many of these' It was a very unique building in Stuttgart, Germany. Funny you should mention this as I just had a rejection today for too many similar images. I did a few searches and they in fact had only one which I thought was particularly odd. I'm assuming though in my case and in yours they are thinking in much much broader terms. Too many buildings in general rather than too many of that building.
71
« on: September 14, 2006, 10:15 »
First thought, "sketchy" and "illegal" are two separate things. One could be sketchy without being illegal. However, in the end I think both are acceptable.
72
« on: September 13, 2006, 21:56 »
I tried them for over a year, no sales. I gave up and deleted everything.
73
« on: September 13, 2006, 04:13 »
Setting up a direct deposit system with banks from ever country that they have photags at would be a nightmare. Paypal is the 21st century as as long as you have a verified account, I dont see any problems with it.
Wouldn't bother me in the least that they would have more work with direct deposit, just the nature of doing business. Paypal on the other hand doesn't have a good reputation and personally I'm very leery of them.
74
« on: September 13, 2006, 04:09 »
So far, knock on wood, I have a 99% acceptance rate from them. Only one rejection I don't agree with. That was for the image being "too dark". I don't agree because the image is supposed to be dark but I can see that it wouldn't be a great seller anyway because buyers seem to be looking for bright/happy images.
75
« on: September 13, 2006, 03:59 »
Have LO joined the 21st century yet and opened a Paypal account? A $40 cheque isn't too much use either.
Paypal would be a step backward for most people. If these sites could just do direct deposit then that would be a huge step forward.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
