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 - pancaketom

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 74
Shutterstock.com / Re: keywords missing
« on: January 23, 2020, 15:58 »
Sometimes SS removes keywords that it decides aren't allowed. Sometimes they are the most obvious innocuous keywords for the image. Sometimes they are keywords that SS suggests. They don't actually tell you which keywords they remove, so you sort of need to watch it in the submission process. I think it is how they went about "fixing" the problem of people spamming the titles to get top search position. For example for an image of barbecue chicken. Keywords are "barbecue chicken", "grilled chicken" "cooked chicken" "chicken". SS removes the keyword "chicken"

Shutterstock.com / Re: Is this January especially low for you?
« on: January 16, 2020, 01:39 »
I started out with a 0 sales day the first, and had more the 3rd and the 11th. Overall sales were ok for the new low SS through the 7th. I haven't had anything over a .38 sale since then and it shows in the total. 

Adobe is probably a little above average due to a few slightly larger sales.

Alamy has a decent # of sales but total for me is pretty low due to low $ sales and the lower %age

Canva seems a little up from the new lower average last year

But part of the key is where you end up in the search for say "tasty tomato"  or maybe even more common by a whole lot just "tomato". If you are pushed back even a tiny amount from say page 1 to page 4 (out of 100's) that means you won't make many sales.

A much more interesting question to me is if it would be worth going for top placement in a less common search and just admit you will never show up near the top of a really generic search.

Of course it probably isn't worth it to try to be too clever about this since you would have to do it differently for each site and then they will go and change the search in some way which makes your attempts useless. I say put in the obvious keywords with a good description and in the long run that should be the best. Especially over more than one site and over time.

Newbie Discussion / Re: Shutter stock rejections arrgghh
« on: January 09, 2020, 00:23 »
Every once in a while I get a bad keyword rejection - I have no idea what the bad keyword is, maybe something repeated? eg "sign" "roadsign" "road sign"? I know they don't have time to tell you what is wrong, but it sure would help.

snip.... If DT is going to tell me my sales came from words that aren't in my title or description or keywords, how did someone find them? I'd like to know that trick.

I think they search with some keywords, then go down the rabbit hole of clicking on portfolio or similar images or others with this model. It might not take very long to get to a completely different image with really no obvious relation to the keywords listed in the search (and I definitely have some reported that don't make any sense to have shown up with a search of those words).

Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock ... stopped uploading there
« on: January 04, 2020, 11:14 »
I always figured BS was where SS played around with ways to take a bigger chunk of the pie, so I stopped uploading there. If I had known that they would keep the perpetual .38 cents with the bridge to BS (instead of it only lasting one year as they said when they first announced it) I'd have gone with that.

Adobe Stock / Re: How is your December
« on: December 31, 2019, 14:35 »
I looked back and I also have 0 sales listed for the first week of 2019 on some of the graphs despite sales during that time, I notice some discrepancies between local time and dates and whatever time and dates Adobe uses, so maybe that explains things as it gets weirder when the date changes?

Looking at the keywords reported by SS and DT I think that for most photos only a few keywords are really needed for them to show up in most searches that are relevant for them.  Who knows what all is in the secret sauce of the searches though, but search position is almost everything, so basically we are somewhat guessing about a hugely important factor. At least at some times what the sites say is not what is actually true in the searches, and what works one day might not work the next. In general I'd say put all the keywords in that make sense and leave it at that. Certainly don't add any just to get to some magical number - unless the site has a minimum.

I have no idea how one gets to 30 keywords for a simple isolated tomato - but maybe I'm doing it all wrong.

Shutterstock.com / Re: 0.26 sales on Shutterstock??!!
« on: December 27, 2019, 10:35 »
OOH, Exciting news.   

I sure hope these don't become the new normal

Alamy.com / Re: Awaiting QC
« on: December 20, 2019, 20:50 »
In the past I have noticed that images often pass QC a day or more before I get the notice, but after reading this thread (and uploading a batch this afternoon), I checked and sure enough they were up and ready to manage. I then looked around and eventually found the 5 star QC rank. nice.

General - Top Sites / Re: Least Favorite Site to Upload to?
« on: December 18, 2019, 00:08 »
IS was by far the most annoying. not anymore. Now it is probably Alamy. The DT automatic categories helps there a lot.

Canva / Re: ftp upload fails
« on: December 15, 2019, 15:08 »
I couldn't get it to work for a while, but then I tried again a few days ago and it did work - I'm not sure what if anything I did differently, I sort of started over, but maybe just try again (with the new SFTP instructions).

Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock complying with Chinese censors
« on: December 12, 2019, 12:54 »
No real surprise there, although I am surprised at some of the terms that are banned. Chinese flag? how about Winnie the Pooh? I think that is usually banned.

Shutterstock.com / Re: So, they changed the landing page... again
« on: December 12, 2019, 12:50 »
If it worked, that actually might be an improvement. It still might be an improvement actually. I like that they put the last 20 sales above the lifetime sales total - something that shouldn't be on the front page at all as far as I am concerned. I would like to see the monthly sales graph show sales for all time though - so we can see how they have performed over the years.

If they had actually asked users what they wanted and implemented it, that would be something to crow about.

I didn't have a card go bad, but I reformatted and took a few pics on a card once that wasn't fully transferred to the computer. I used some sort of recovery software - I am not sure what - maybe the one that came with the card? It recovered nearly every photo that I thought I had lost as well as some going back a surprisingly long time. - numerous reformat and use (although not to a full card) cycles earlier. The main issue was it took a long time - like 24 hours or more of the computer slowly churning through the data.

My card has dual slots, but I just write to one and then the other if the first card fills. Sometimes I do video to one and stills to the other. Maybe next time I travel and can't backup I should write to both cards. The price of cards is so much less these days.

Thanks for those graphs - much as I suspected - and what is going on in the graph they put in their infographic -it shows 2 big jumps and otherwise a mostly straight line - but nothing like the actual numbers would suggest. Growth is definitely slowing or stopping but the # of contributors and assets for sale does not seem to be slowing, this is probably even more drastic for SS not counting the other arenas.

I wish they had the Y axis labeled or even or something in that graph. eg 2015-2018 looks like a straight line, but the yearly differences are 23, 11, and 9. I'm tempted to put the numbers into a spreadsheet to see what it really looks like. I'm guessing vaguely like the left side of a bell curve. I'd also like to see a breakdown of SS, offset, premiumbeat, etc. or even more interesting see the SS broken down into video, on demand, subs, etc. I wonder what changed in the years it made a big jump - payout at a lower threshold? added offset? or is there really not much of a change, they just made the bars longer for some reason.

I am also surprised how low N America is compared to Europe. Maybe sales are all going to E Europe.

I guess infographics are OK, but I'd really rather some format that was higher in information and lower in glitz. I don't think SS really wants to provide much information though, or at least wants to obscure a lot and only tell the story they want to tell.

Image Sleuth / Re: Stolen images sold by MHSKYPIXEL
« on: December 03, 2019, 13:04 »

Simple point is, if we can spend minutes or just happened to notice these, while doing other things, imagine what SS could do, if they had just one person hired to clean out the trash and crooks? Apparently it's not a priority or cost effective.

I honestly think that with just a little work SS or other sites could actually make a pretty big difference in spam and stolen images. It would be hard to get it all, but they could just start with the most popular searches and obvious cases and drop the hammer on the blatant ports. The fact that they don't even seem to follow up on cases pointed out to them speaks volumes.

I wonder if they blocked submit.shutterstock too, that would be more interesting.

I imagine that SS is working along with the Chinese govt to block content, so why not bow down to the Russians too.

Isn't anything promoting LGBTQ+ illegal in Russia too - it seems SS is making a push for that content, I wonder if it is available there also.

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Seattle Times article about Getty Images
« on: December 02, 2019, 22:02 »
They also didn't mention how Getty has pretty much always been ahead of the curve in taking the largest percent of every sale for themselves.

I think there are maybe more ways for the sites to "game" the system with a revenue share - like charge a huge fee to be a member and then a very low fee to get the subscription - only share based on the subscription fee. I am not saying that this is what is done, but I think there are more options for funny business. Sadly I think there are lots of ways for the sites to take a bigger piece of the action and the more opaque and black-box the payment system is the more ripe for abuse it is.

Didn't Istock use a revenue sharing system when they first started subs?

I'd like to see a guaranteed minimum per sale too - that way if the site offers some huge discount or free images for marketing or whatever they cover the difference.

Again is this for exclusive content only?

And again is this for exclusive content only?

Anyone knows? Mat?


Our Premium collection consists of some exclusive content and some non-exclusive. It varies based on the agreement with the artist.


So is this agreement available for viewing anywhere or is it a case of each supplier gets a different agreement? Are some suppliers more equal than others?

Alamy.com / Re: 2 sales in november...
« on: November 21, 2019, 14:12 »
Alamy prices are all over the map, but in general going down, and my take is down more.

2 sales so far in Nov, I got $4.90 and $1.28.

If I had a lot more volume that would be great, as it is, not so great, but maybe there will be a $100 + one today.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock reviewers are idiots
« on: November 13, 2019, 18:43 »
It's a program. The same one on SS and BS.

Can't find how to skip it, but I'm still learning.

Computers are stupid.

if it were a computer results wouldn't vary - we've shown that's not the case

unless it is doing some sort of machine learning - where it does change over time.

Canva / Re: More ''Good news'' from Canva :-/
« on: November 02, 2019, 00:43 »
I think part of the problem is that they record the sales in one time zone and report them in another so if they are on either side of midnight they end up on different days - or even months - or something like that. Or maybe they just don't keep particularly good records.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 74


Microstock Poll Results