|
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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
176
« on: August 24, 2008, 07:21 »
I uploaded several images there. Those images were accepted at both IS and SS. They refused about 10% of them, giving some absolutely stupid reasons about bad exposure etc. On top of it they had taken ages to review them. After almost a year I had zero sales there whereas the images kept selling elsewhere, so I deleted them all and closed my account there. This Microstockphoto is definitely not worth. 
177
« on: August 18, 2008, 12:49 »
Oops, I missed their previous message. My problem might have been caused by their new once-a-day batch system. I hope they will solve this soon so that we can check our numbers on-line again.
178
« on: August 18, 2008, 05:28 »
Well, the only problem is I usually upload every other day. So waiting for the next moon would cause a big "photo jam". :-)
179
« on: August 17, 2008, 14:44 »
Same here. I had a period when they accepted everything I had sent them. And now they keep rejecting the very same pictures (or maybe even better) with their stupid "overabundant" or "type" pseudoreasons. But my sales are now much better than their used to be. So I do not know what to make from it.
180
« on: August 17, 2008, 09:21 »
I seem to have had serious problem since the launch of the new earning/downloaded pages. I have just compared the numbers from old and new versions of earning and downloaded pages and the data received from the StockMon software. I have got different numbers - e.g. downloaded images are 8, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Even when I was doing the test I noticed a credit download had gone missing. Does anybody have similar problems? What is going on there?
181
« on: August 15, 2008, 16:17 »
I do not know about their usefulness in sales but I sometimes use exactly those terms when I am not able to achieve the ten keywords they require. I usually do not have difficulty describing my images but the gits at IS keep rejecting a lot of my images because of "keywords" e.g. they "thought" that a photo-joke picture could not have keywords as "fun, joke, ..." etc. So sometimes I am so desperate that I use those nothing-saying-nothing keywords...
182
« on: August 07, 2008, 09:53 »
Perfect! I have just come back after a few days, seen this notice and checked my account - and I have had OnDemandSale today!!! I have more money from this one than from the other nine sales! Well done SS! I hope there will be much more of them!
183
« on: July 31, 2008, 01:37 »
It's one of the worst issues with my Canon EF-S 17-85 IS.
It is very irritating, one of the best things to do is to shoot RAW and fix in software using the manufacturer's plugin/settings for your specific lens.
If you shoot jpg then color replace tool in photoshop is an option.
Anyway I'm looking for a better lens.
Where can I find it? I have similar problem with this lens.
184
« on: July 30, 2008, 16:52 »
I have earned one only dollar there too (over the starting bonus of 25)! I stopped uploading months ago. I do not know how Karimala could reach 75 USD. She must be a megasuperwoman! It is impossible for ordinary people. Well done Karimala! Shame on you Albumo!
185
« on: July 30, 2008, 02:43 »
I am sorry to bother you, but I am not able to find their MR form... Can anybody show me where to look? Or may I use a signed form of another agency? Thank you.
186
« on: July 29, 2008, 01:25 »
They were accepted bids.
187
« on: July 25, 2008, 01:37 »
I like CutCaster. I sent them a small batch of images - just to test them - a few days ago and have had two sales so far! And the commission is excellent. I will most certainly go on uploading there. Well done, CutCaster!
188
« on: July 24, 2008, 11:34 »
Yeah, I must agree: they have very strict editorial standards, and occupy a different market position then the other agencies you mentioned. They have very special review times as well - about a year. And best of all they are not able to sell any of the images they have very strictly chosen. I gave them up months ago. The second they add a delete button I am going to delete all the images too. There is really no point. They just keep boasting about their being different but all the differences I can see are zero sales. Everywhere else I have my images sold...
189
« on: July 22, 2008, 06:25 »
But I like your tool all the same and use it very often. And I have much more sales with non-is sites. :-)
190
« on: July 18, 2008, 10:09 »
That is exactly what I am afraid of - if I disabled the subs(all or some), I would not have any downloads at all. I think at least 0.30 looks a teeny bit better than 0.00. But I am not very sure about this any more... With the downsoaring dollar rate it has started to look almost identical...
191
« on: July 18, 2008, 10:04 »
Oh, I do not know about the change of buyers taste. But I do know another thing. A lot of buyers who used to pay me a dollar a download or more are now using their bloody subscription and pay only a fragment or the original price for the very same files. I have not noticed any decrease in the number of downloads or any significant change of the themes. But I have noticed a great decrease in money paid for the files.
192
« on: July 18, 2008, 01:50 »
Yeah, it must have been a sub-sale. I start hating subs. After some dull months I have a lot of sales in July (cannot figure out why, but I do) - but all subs. I think there is no point in setting price at 5 USD as everybody buys your L files only as subs.
193
« on: July 16, 2008, 04:25 »
I must say I really hate the stupid keywording of theirs! According to many comments here almost all keywords could qualify as SPAM. But in case I put e.g. only "book", they would bother me farther about not having enough keywords. They clearly want to be as much nuisance as possible. Why on earth cannot they simply remove the keywords which are according to their stupid opinion redundant and it would be it? It would be perfectly OK with me. They edit your keyword anyway when some git does not like them. So why not edit them at the start in the same way? Or why cannot it be possible just to edit the keywords without having to upload the image all over again? But they clearly like refusing nonexclusive images and bothering people. The best thing is the same set of keywords is accepted once and refused the other time...
194
« on: July 14, 2008, 05:06 »
I wonder whether the BUYERS section is working. I do hope so. I do not mind not being able to submit new pictures for a while as long as my accepted pictures are sold in the meantime...
195
« on: July 09, 2008, 02:41 »
I have noticed they have improved very much. My last batches have all been reviewed within a few hours! Great of you StockXpert!!! 
196
« on: July 01, 2008, 12:42 »
As nothing has changed or improved there, I have just stopped uploading there (and on Canstock). However, I am not going to delete my portfolio. I am going to return there in a month to see whether or not they start selling reasonably.
197
« on: June 17, 2008, 04:16 »
I do not want to be a wet blanket but are we speaking about FeaturePics or Fotolia here?
198
« on: June 17, 2008, 03:03 »
I do not understand... Are we SUPPOSED to design our own pages to promote FeaturePics? Too bad... I would not know how to do it.
199
« on: June 16, 2008, 11:20 »
I have not sold a single picture there since April 15th! Unless they sell anything by the end of this month, I shall stop uploading. It is not worth.
200
« on: June 09, 2008, 14:00 »
OK, I am going to check it all, but even now without having to look I can tell you shutterstock is definitely one of them. On the other hand, bigstock is sure to be OK.
But there is something wrong wit fotolia. E.g. I have just sold a picture for 2cr which is 0.66 USD and the application reads 0.81! And the monthly a total sums seem to be affected in similar ways.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
