pancakes

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 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 87
1826


That's how polls are made, aren't they? They ask a few hundred/thousand ppl for which party they're going to vote and present the results. Or even a better example they're doing that on the election day throughout the day and when they're over (at 19.00 in my country) they present the results on the news and they're never far off from the official results. They're usually just a few percents off, e.g. a party gets a seat more or less in the parliament. So my method must be very good and proven as well ;)

In a decent poll they are very careful about those that they select for the poll. There is significant bias in self selected polls in that the people that tend to respond care very strongly or have an agenda or are just those with more time on their hands and they aren't necessarily representative of the whole. If IS hadn't blurred their sales stats then looking at total sales on istockcharts.multimedia.de would have provided an interesting month to month comparison at least of the sales # if not the $ #. (In fact that might have been why they did that).

1827
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Royalty Free
« on: July 15, 2011, 19:14 »
I have about 15 zooms per sale, but my sales are all very small - more micro in size really. I mostly have micro images as RF w/ a few RM files. Not really worth my time yet, but a few >100$ sales could change that. I keep hoping.

1828
I think that making a search that really works makes the total # of files irrelevant for the agency. If there are a million isolated apples and someone searches for isolated apple a good search engine would show them those apples and the buyer will buy. That makes a happy customer and a happy agency. Now the chance that my isolated apple will sell is pretty small, but that is how this works already.

The real problem will be fixing or culling the bad keywords. Either someone needs to actually do this, or they need to make a search engine that can somehow tell and deliver relevant content w/o pages and pages of near identical images.  DTs image flagging is one way to do it, but it doesn't seem like their program really works.

Someone else mentioned a field for what is actually in the image - that would be pretty nice, but who wants to go back and do it for the old images. It would be like istocks disambiguation mess, although if you pushed images w/o this field to the back of the search that would be a pretty good incentive.

Rather than having the search try to guess what you want based on previous experience, it would be nice to have the ability to have lots of settings and have them stay the way you set them until you reset them. So if you just want cheap files, you set it that way.

1829
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Moving backwards with iStock
« on: July 15, 2011, 17:56 »
I am pretty sure I had a self portrait release rejected for no witness, but it might not have been IS.

1830
iStockPhoto.com / Re: best match shake 13/07/11
« on: July 15, 2011, 17:52 »
...

Over the years theyve tried so many different strategies and they always corrected their mistakes. ...



From my point of view that is not true, unless you are still giving them time to correct mistakes from years ago. Although the changes announced last fall really are the biggies.

1831
iStockPhoto.com / Re: best match shake 13/07/11
« on: July 14, 2011, 17:45 »
whatever it is, if it's the reason I'm suddenly having a few good days of sales at IS, I'm all for it!

agreed, it is nice to get some downloads for a change.

1832
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Milan Lypse 2011
« on: July 14, 2011, 14:38 »
There are 2.7 million places available - you'll get in for sure.

1833
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock's 'Keyword Trends'
« on: July 14, 2011, 01:46 »
I guess this will be more useful when they have a full years worth of data. Still it is  interesting although with new files not really getting the sales they did (and not showing up for a while?) it might be less useful to try to time your uploads.

I'd rather they get the sales stats sortable though.

and having search and indexing working 100% of the time would be even better.

1834
It is a mess, some sites won't take any, some take some. I think British royalty is not allowed, and full scans (that could be used for counterfeit) are not allowed at most places. Presumably old enough stuff should be allowed, but your experience may differ. I think in general sites are tightening up on this sort of thing, so even though there may be a lot of images in their database, yours might be rejected.

1835
General Stock Discussion / Re: Bad July sales
« on: July 11, 2011, 15:40 »
Other than a nice EL, my IS sales are staggeringly low this month. Sales for me there are sporadic and random enough that it could just be within the statistical norm, but for 1/3 of a month, they are 1/10 of what I was making per month last year. The EL throws everything off though, so I can't really say much at this point.

1836
Veer / Re: New Public Profile Pages for Veer Contributors
« on: July 08, 2011, 22:01 »
I messed with it a bit. There should be a way to designate which image is the "cover" image for an album other than adding it last. (or if there was a way of doing that I didn't see it or refresh properly or something).

It looks potentially useful though.

1837
Adobe Stock / Re: fotolia is sinking
« on: July 08, 2011, 21:10 »
It seems like IS and FT are a bit like big casinos, where what you really need to remember is that the house always wins.

but I suppose we should also remember we shouldn't be playing against the house, it should be a situation where we can both benefit even if some places say that is unsustainable.

Personally I'd like to see IS and FT buyers go elsewhere since they are the leaders in low and dropping commissions.

1838
I'd be more concerned w/ what I got for the sale than what the cost was - for example at the lowest level on IS, a 20$ sale will return the artist $3. a 10$ sale at a site with 50% commission gives the artist 5$.  - Note that most of the sales on CanStockPhoto are from members which are half the price listed for non members (so $5 for a vector if I am reading things correctly = $2.50 for the artist).

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

In general the new site looks like a big improvement. The search does tend to clump similar images from the same artist, but that is understandable if they all have the same keywords.

1839
I didn't see the total download stats on the individual image page, thanks. I liked that info in the "faved" section, but at least I can find it if I need it.

Thanks for getting back to us with questions. It is appreciated.

and thanks for all the sales lately, last month was my BME at 123RF

1840
General Stock Discussion / Re: Good Piece
« on: July 03, 2011, 21:51 »
I wonder when some shady company like Getty will open up its own reseller sites so that they can skim another % from the sale before it gets to the photographer. If site A sells a file  for site B and takes 50% and then site B takes 50% the photographer only gets 25% - now try the math with Istock level of % ages or with 3 or more reseller sites and pretty much the $ is all gone before we get it.

1841
Dreamstime.com / Re: level 0
« on: July 03, 2011, 13:46 »
level 0 25 credit U-EL gets me 4.38 - that is a bit painful.

If they didn't go with the 25% I'd be happy with the whole level 0 thing though.

1842
A while ago (like a year?) the sales stats were removed from the "my images" and "fave images" sections on 123RF. I found this information useful both to see how images were doing and to decide which images to fave/unfave. I would like to know if this information is available somewhere other than adding up individual month sales and if it isn't available somewhere is there any plan to make it so. This seems like an important bit of information for us photographers (and the total $ amounts would be nice too while I am wishing).

1843
General Stock Discussion / Re: "Fair" Trade Rules
« on: June 21, 2011, 21:08 »
Without seeing the companies real books it would be hard to say what commission %age is fair (but I bet it isn't 15% or even 30%). There should be some lower limit that a company can't pretend to be fair trade without being above it.

Most of these things previously mentioned should be there. I'd like to see more transparency in a lot of things from "partner" programs to what the buyer actually paid for an image and what the photographer gets. Look at Fotolia for how not to run credit costs, exchange rates, etc.

Without some teeth I doubt it will make much difference and I applaud the effort.

How long do you think is reasonable for a company to take to resolve an issue before one goes to the internet with it?

1844
Shutterstock.com / Re: Are you experiencing MASS REJECTIONS?
« on: June 21, 2011, 16:18 »
I haven't sent them a lot of pics in the last 2 months or so, but the reviews seemed reasonable, then today I got a 100% rejection pile. I must say that it is frustrating, although it would be even more so if recent uploads sold the way they used to. At least they were accepted at most of the other sites.

1845
Image Sleuth / Re: Picasa album of Shutterstock images
« on: June 16, 2011, 17:12 »
He actually has "Shutterstock-Business" as his album title.  Did you contact Shutterstock?

That looks like it is business images swiped from shutterstock - he also has architecture

1846
Lots of my uses are on pages that aren't in English... about 5 of my dad on Thai people's facebook pages. I presume if you bought it that is legal as far as the stock sites are concerned, but I am not sure FB would be happy about it (and I doubt they were bought for this use).

Some of the European ones were sellers with links back to DT or other stock sites - presumably partner sites?

Interesting, it sure does bring up a lot more than tineye ever did.

--=Tom

1847
Dreamstime.com / Re: Dreamstime is going MICRO MICRO MICRO
« on: June 15, 2011, 15:38 »
The idea of collages does rub me the wrong way too. Maybe they'd prefer cubist photos with all angles covered.

Unless server space is too expensive for them though, they ought to just put something in the algorythm that pushes old low sellers back. It is a little annoying when they reject something for too similar and you can't find anything similar when you search.

Still, it is their sandbox so they get to set the rules (and we get to complain about them here).

1848
StockFresh / Re: A year? Really?
« on: June 15, 2011, 15:30 »
after over a year wait I sent them an e-mail and was accepted a few days later.

1849
Bigstock.com / Re: Increased Bigstock Sales
« on: June 11, 2011, 20:15 »
Nothing special there for me, it continues to be somewhat steady but very very slow.

1850
StockFresh / Re: A year? Really?
« on: June 09, 2011, 19:24 »
I don't know when I applied there, but I am guessing it was over a year ago. Either they are incompetent or don't care for my application or have other things they'd rather be doing.

--=Tom

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77 78 79 ... 87

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors