|
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 - peep
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
« on: June 15, 2009, 02:30 »
I left there after their number one photographer went through my portfolio marking everything as a 1. Why this chap (called Haglunddaniel) wanted to hurt my sales so much I have no ides, i had never come across him before.
I decided then that ratings that were open to such vindictive acts were really flawed, and I will not upload any more. The site is a joke.
Yeah, this very same loser Haglunddaniel damaged about 200 of my pictures with his 1s or 2s in his attempt to keep his 1st place in the hall of fame. Then I blocked his pseudorating for my photos.
2
« on: June 05, 2009, 04:37 »
I was going over the Albumo site yesterday and found out, that there is some problem.
Look here:
http://albumo.com/blog-view/106
http://albumo.com/browse-by-user/98
At Pixmac, we're paying regularly. From $50. And it goes well, even we're also a newcomer. Have anyone bad experience with Pixmac?
Thx. Vitezslav, CEO
Well, not exactly "bad" but I wonder when I will be send the money for 500 accepted images? I cannot find any info about this bonus in my prof. information...
3
« on: May 25, 2009, 10:53 »
I requested one on the 20th and got it on the 23rd. You might want to contact support - maybe you got skipped?
I got one on the 23rd too but I had requested it on the 13th. They seem to send money e.g. three times a month or something like this - so if you are lucky and request your payment a few days before the "payday", you will get it almost at once; if you are unlucky and ask shortly after the "payday", you will wait a week or two...
4
« on: May 18, 2009, 15:09 »
Well, they should at the very least have said so - I would not have bothered with them any more if they had said they wanted just some business idiots teams etc. But DT is used to punishing us contributors for their problems - look at the "refunds" they without our permission just take of our account because THEY accepted some fraud credit card. And now our AR would be damaged because THEY used to take a lot of crap (so that they could boast how many pictures they had in their huge database) and now they have too much of everything.
5
« on: May 11, 2009, 14:43 »
I haven't gotten one yet, but I am expecting it. I bet there will be a lot of others here who get that message as well.
I am expecting one too. I think if they had wanted my pictures, they would have already moved them. I am a bit disappointed - I had regular payouts with SV and I have ca 95% AR. I just hope they will pay the rest of money. I saw my earnings disappear on more than one occasion (LO...).
6
« on: May 10, 2009, 15:35 »
well one of the images they rejected two days ago sold on 123Rf one view one sale ,so ppl do want new stuff no wonder their sales are decreasing .
Yeah, I have the very same experience. The new files are usually better than their old well-covered stuff and even if they are not better, they are certainly not worse and they are NEW. I used to upload only files accepted at least by two other agencies in Big6. And I did not have a single technical rejection. Only this well-covered blah blah or too many shots blah blah.
7
« on: May 10, 2009, 08:58 »
Well, 80% rejected for that "well covered nonsense" again. I am fed up. I am going to stop uploading for a month and then I am going to try again. If they stopped with this stupidity, I would go on uploading, otherwise I would not upload any more. This is only a waste of my time. And the sales there have decreased considerably too since they began with this we-have-it-all-covered and go-to-hell-with-your-images policy.
8
« on: May 08, 2009, 10:56 »
That is good news! I wish DT would do the same instead of their threatening how removing old similars would lower our AR.
9
« on: May 08, 2009, 10:54 »
Yes, this is a really intelligent move. I like how they are implementing it too. Nice that they are transferring any comments or sales to the file that is staying online. More work for them, but very nice to the contributor.
As far as I know I don't have any duplicates. Similars from a series, yes. I better go take a look and make sure there are no duplicates...
Well - I strongly suspect they are going to reject even the similars!
10
« on: May 07, 2009, 16:26 »
But I wish they would not count rejections for "Not what we are looking for" under your stats.
So do I. And another thing that makes me angry with them. They did not complain about those images when they wanted to reach x.xxx.xxx milestone and boast about their huge collection. That time they did not mind such images, did they. And now they are going to reject them and lower your AR retroactively, which is egregious!
11
« on: May 07, 2009, 02:06 »
12
« on: May 06, 2009, 16:40 »
...
I am not saying we should accuse fotolia of anything because it is wrong, but they always tend to do things that upset contributors..
I must agree - they DO things to upset contributors. And so does DT. FT: they keep changing their conditions - almost always the new ones are worse for us and better for them, they lowered our commissions, they have unpredictable rejections, they are said not to be very communicative or responsive (do not know myself, have never needed their help) DT: they punish us for their own mistakes (their so called "customer refund" - somebody has our images, we lose every control over them and even the small commission is stolen from us), they have their "well-covered-crap" rejections or "too many shots" rejections, they are going to re-review old portfolios for "similars" (nothing wrong in general but they did not mind them at all when they wanted to boas about xxx.xxx milestones or about xx.xxx new images every week, did they), they are going to remove accepted files and lower our acceptance ratios (again they did not mind similar files when they wanted to brag about their huge collection) - and this may easy be the beginning for them to change their conditions every other week and "re-review" portfolios whenever they feel like it. I would not be against stronger rules against similars or series - but it must be from now on, never retroactively.
13
« on: May 06, 2009, 06:12 »
Recently, there are simply too many XS and S sales. These numbers do not tally up against the other sites that report the size downloaded where small sizes are in the minority. Are Fotolia's buyers totally different to other microstock site buyers (I think not).
I thought I could see the same problem a few months ago but then I realised the larger size are now sold under subscription (usually or even always - not sure - L size). So I have mostly XS, S and SUBs :-( Or maybe not - I have just sold one file for 5 credits... But I really do not think they would sell L size and report it as XS... It would be a very stupid thing to do...
14
« on: May 04, 2009, 18:16 »
I have one photo that sells continually and more than any other at FT
Exactly! In my case it is a very simple image of sliced cucumber on the white background. I cannot understand why it keeps being sold. It is not better than the other images of vegetables I have uploaded there...
15
« on: May 01, 2009, 11:40 »
I am kinda fed up of their stupid "this is well covered..." rejections. I can see they have several similar photos - so what? My photos might not be better but they certainly are not worse than the ones they already have - so I want my chance to compete. It is not my fault somebody else started with them earlier and had already sent something similar. My pictures deserve to be allowed in that competing business. Let buyers decide which one to download. In many countries it would be even against law to prevent competition in that way. E.g. in my country if I were not allowed to sell - say - flowers just because somebody else is already selling them, I could appeal to the law and I would win. This "well covered" sh-t is all wrong. Why do not they just delete the old unsold similar "well covered" images instead?
16
« on: April 29, 2009, 17:57 »
thanks for this.
I have a couple of flower shots that do very well  , but in context of the number I take it would be less than 0.05% that I submit. If you can name the flower than it seems more likely to get accepted. (although my mum pointed out the number of mistakes I made in naming 
on the list of 11-30, near the bottom is 'Akt', any ideas what this is?
Phil
Very true. I have a lot of flowers I have not uploaded because I have yet to find their correct names. I think it is essential as most of my flowers are macros and not "flower backgrounds".
17
« on: April 29, 2009, 03:57 »
FLOWERS??? I would like to know why they are (supposedly) rejected so much! I cannot speak from my own experience - almost all my flower shots have been accepted and have been selling reasonably well. But a lot of people keep complaining about flower-rejections.
18
« on: April 24, 2009, 03:54 »
Nothing here either... It was just a great deal of lost time...
19
« on: April 17, 2009, 09:55 »
we need to have a good stock before we start, don't worry we have now 1000 photos, we start soon..
Regards
I alone have 9500 photos! Can I start up my own agency? 
Yes :-)
20
« on: April 15, 2009, 07:01 »
YayMicro got a lot more potential, but it was worthless anyway.
I dont believe any new site will ever suceed. Those days are over.
Agree... But I am sorry about it...
21
« on: April 09, 2009, 05:01 »
I have just got a file on BS for 7 USD.  Anybody knows by any chance which kind of licence it is? Anyway, I hope there will be many more of these....
22
« on: April 08, 2009, 14:51 »
cannot be worse...
23
« on: April 08, 2009, 11:10 »
I had a subscription sale of XXL file for 0,30 yesterday. Is it OK? I thought XXL were not sold for 0,30 but for more... It was JUI.
30140251 Ivy Frame Background April 7, 2009, 4:14 AM XXL $0.30
24
« on: April 08, 2009, 10:56 »
It still is better to tell us that they don't want that image than trying to find the technical problem for which they could reject it.
OK - but then they should not use those rejections to decrease our acceptance ratio which they then use to calculate the position of our photos in the search engine results... It should be something like Accept-Ignore-Reject for any photo. And only the photos rejected for technical flaws should decrease your position in search results.
25
« on: April 07, 2009, 07:29 »
We are changing our reviewing process in order to meet different market segment demands. From now on we will have a stricter approach to various subject matters and only the best will be approved. The main reasons are that we have an abundance of the same subjects (more or less) so this will encourage our contributors to concentrate on the type of images that our clients are looking for. This will potentially help with your sales as well as image views and in the long run help with review times.
Thank you for your understanding,
This sounds frightening. I hope they will change their mind... Clearly they are changing everything because of the stupid getty-thing. Nevertheless I had 100% images accepted yesterday. (and they were exactly the same subjects as usual) So it might not be so bad.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
Some obnoxious contributor who has the ratio of 91,99%? 
