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 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72]
1776
DT seems to return the least number of completely bogus spammed images, and if you get one, you can report it with just a click. I don't much care for seeing a heap of images from one contributor all in a row, which makes me think that that something about the contributor is too important in the search algorithm compared to the specific image. I don't know that the images returned are "best", but at least they aren't completely out of bounds.

IS could be good, but because of the limited CV and most importantly the default mapping it actually doesn't seem to work very well for me. Granted I haven't spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make their search work for me.

SS seems to have a LOT of bogus returns. Partly this is because they break up multiple word keywords, but mostly I think they let in a lot of spam and do nothing about it. Also when you are searching for something which isn't particularly popular, more popular type images that have those keywords show up at the top of the search.

1777
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Can inspections become more inane?
« on: October 14, 2008, 00:07 »
perhaps using a polarizing FILTER is what gets you the overfiltered. It seems somewhat random to me, as do the rejections for incomplete MR. I have had them rejected for not having my signature, for not having my address, for not having the subject's birthday... (and the same MR taken before and after that). since I have plenty of images to send them my paltry 15 a week, I never bother resubmitting, but just send the next 15. It almost seems that the ones SS rejects for poor light are accepted at IS and vice versa. I have never had any pics with the bright popping colors accepted at IS, but I have heard if you can manage to get one in, they sell like mad. Since I stopped trying to send them my best sellers, but just send them everything once it gets to the top of the queue, I am surprised by how many images that aren't accepted elsewhere or are poor sellers are accepted. oh well. I suppose they know what they want, although it doesn't seem that way.

I have come to the conclusion that artifact = anything that is associated with a digital picture - digital noise, jpeg artifacts, banding, jagged histograms, tired inspectors, sensor dust... I have no idea what distorted pixels are though.

--=Tom

1778
This latest change seems to have actually helped me marginally, although with new files selling instead of the ones that used to sell.

1779
This COULD be a good thing, or they could mess it up horribly. knowing IS, I'm not placing any bets. If they go after people who have a few weird keywords (mostly due to their weird limited CV mapping), then it will be horrible, if they take out the serial purposeful spammers, it will be a good first step.

They also need to get rid of the weird default terms for multiple choice keywords to remove the huge advantage enjoyed by images spammed with those default terms.

It might be a hopeless battle, but if they can pull it off properly, it will drag the other sites (other than DT, which seems to have it fairly under control) to take action. Good luck to them.

--=Tom

1780
done:

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=12624451



The pic I got commented on a bit ago just sold... thanks everyone.

1782
Shutterstock.com / Re: How much this beast need to be fed?
« on: September 26, 2008, 13:57 »
I'd say refining their search and getting rid of the spam (and maybe spreading out similars?) would do them more good than trying to tighten standards (which seems to result in rejecting anything a little different). It does seem that the new image bounce is less than it was.

1783
General Stock Discussion / is this ok? public domain artwork
« on: September 21, 2008, 15:14 »
I saw this on IS:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7273686

looks like their portfolio is full of this kind of stuff.

If they let you do that, I'm going to the library for some old books and firing up the scanner. I seem to recall DT removing some Da Vinci stuff someone had posted though.

1784
StockXpert.com / Re: Late breaking news: New EULA
« on: August 15, 2008, 19:16 »
I was clearing spam and found that message, It looks like they addressed my main complaints and concerns (EL like usage of subscriptions). I'll have to read the fine print a bit more and see what others think they see, but I am tentatively planning on opting back in. I am glad they provided the option to opt out and noticed that some of us were unhappy and concerned.

--=Tom

1785
iStockPhoto.com / Re: "3 Weeks Of Exclusive Prestige" Email
« on: June 21, 2008, 17:39 »
It seems the longer and harder iStock works to make independent content on their site rare, the larger the advantages of looking elsewhere for images will be. I for one have at least double the images elsewhere than at istock, and I imagine that many have much larger imbalances. Instead of trumpeting the exclusive content, they will have to try to hide how many great images they don't have.

I did get one Keyword rejection in my last batch, but since they rejected it for artifacts and light or miscolored pixels or something else like that, I won't even bother looking at what keywords they didn't like. probably something they keyword mapped to something rediculous and I didn't catch.

Rather than an added bonus for exclusivity, this latest "offer" is more of an added stick for independents.

They do get points for trying to fix ambiguous keywords and spamming, but they are doing a rather poor and annoying job of it as far as I'm concerned.

1786
Alamy.com / Re: 48MB minimum size? a joke? haha
« on: June 17, 2008, 22:37 »


I was kinda dreaming - I don't think that it is realistic, that I could make money towards that DSLR through stock sales. Ok, that is probably unrealistic, but that was my thinking.



That's how I financed my dslr (with microstock sales), and I doubt I am alone. However, looking back at all the effort I had to go through with the p&s sometimes, I should have gotten the dslr a lot sooner.

on another note, Alamy should just say "we require over X mpixel images saved as high quality .jpg" and save everyone the confusion. X seems to be somewhere around 16.8 mp (I had a 16.1mp file rejected as too small)

1787
Dreamstime.com / Re: payrise at DT
« on: June 17, 2008, 21:08 »
"So does it mean that a 1 credit sale won't be US$0.50 anymore, but 50% of the credit price charged to the buyer?
"

that is my understanding. I don't know what the actual costs per credit are, but they would have to be quite a bit under a dollar to really make this new system result in a drop in income I think.

Now if only the DT tap would run continuously instead of off and on every few days.

1788
iStockPhoto.com / Re: New Best Match......... UP
« on: June 13, 2008, 18:17 »
sorting my own port does seem very heavily weighted on the recent uploads. However my downloads have been really really slow despite keeping my queue full for over the last month. Hopefully I can get some boost, but maybe this change really just serves to further benefit the exclusives who can jump the queue.

1789
well, my last batch of 11 just got reviewed and 10 rejected, most for focus... so much for that (and it was the image that I thought had the sketchiest focus that got accepted - go figure). I did notice last thursday the review was super fast, just a few hours, then by Sat night it is pretty slow. I am guessing many people are trying to get Monday morning acceptances.  Then one has to worry about when they get indexed...

1790
Next month, it might be worth looking at all the $/image stats and using the same scales for all the sites - this would mean extra low levels at some sites and extra high levels at others, but would make the info more useful across the sites. It would also be cool if the results could be all put on the same page.

On a side note, I calculate it based on the images at the end of the month, which skews it slightly lower, but not a lot.

SS probably is such a high returner because it is so much easier to get images up there (acceptance ratio and no upload limits), and the near instant sales after uploads. (compared to IS, where I only have 2 sales from the last months uploads while keeping my queue full)

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 [72]

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results