I think it would be great if the current predefined template system could be replaced by an opt-in type of system.

Currently, I need to create a template, save it, then go to my uploads, select an array of files, and then apply one of the templates I created in the past. I think it would be a huge improvement, if I could start with selecting the array of uploaded files, then click an "generic metadata" button, land on an opt-in form where I can specify the data I'd like to add to all files, and click apply.

Kudos for Pond5 being the only site (I'm aware of) to read the metadata added in FCP. That saves a lot of time!

Cool! Purple finging serves a purpose!

Plus another 60 deactivated, for good measure.

No. I sent a similar question to Veer's Contributor support, and they said it wasn't possible.

I mentioned it in another Canstock thread - my previous upload was awaiting for ~12 days until it was reviewed. I did open support ticket Duncan confirmed that he didn't see anything special/wrong.

Now my next batch is pending since 09-Sep...

At the same other many other contributors report fast review times.

My only guess is that some reviewers pick up some batches for review and then forget about them....

Yup, the uploads from August have been reviewd. I'm currently stuck at around 5 September. I have been uploading daily since mid August, and reviews are seeping through chronologically, but way, way slower than I've grown accustomed to. (still beats Veer by a fortnight, though)

Recently reviewed files show up in my portfolio, but carry the status "Processing" for a while. Never seen that before, either. Guess the CanStockPhoto database and server capacity is maxing out.

Duncan gave me the same response. Time to revive the support ticket

You can set the amount at which 123RF pays you out around the 15th if you reach the threashold by the end of the previous month here: https://www.123rf.com/changeinfo.php

is it normal these days to wait for more than 2 weeks for images review at CS? I remember it used to a few hours some time ago...

We, too, have images pending since the end of August, and reading this tread, I contacted Duncan.

usual reasons for such delays can be copyrighted terms ("disney", "olympics", etc) in kewyords, or new model releases, as they need to be checked by CS' legal deptartment.

I also pointed Duncan to this thread. Hope it gets resolved, soon.

Interesting topic. But with out thew analysis, based on just a rough gut feeling, there's not much point. Not only that, I wouldn't know where to begin to provide even remotely accurate figures.

In case you're interested in just finding out, read Tom Grill's Image Half Life, or get the values from Arcurs

I just looked at our portfolio, and it seems to have changed somewhere in the course of today. I checked this morning, and I got the old view. Now I see something different - see OP's link.

Stockperformer suffered from a similar malfunction after the changes. They managed to get everything working again pretty quickly.

Deepmeta works for me. It had a short issue yesterday, around 16.30 UTC +1, but that's the only hickup I experienced after the site upgrade.

As to PicNiche toolbar, I'm sure Bob will chime in soon enough, too.

From Pond5: "Thanks for the upload. While we are not yet disallowing Motion Jpeg codec, we are encouraging contributors to use ProRes422 codec since it is higher quality. "

What should I be using for "higher quality"?

Or do I need to open these in Elements and then "Save As" something else. If so, what's the best format to save my files in for Pond5, possibly SS and IS also. Is there one that works for all of them?

I do have the same problem with English as you have. I'm using H.264 almost without exceptions. Trying to get files uploaded to Shutterstock, I've tried other codecs, though. Having said that, all my efforts in trying to find the right codec for SS where back when I used Final Cut Pro. I've now bought Final Cut X, and all of a sudden, all sites just swallow the files I produce. I still don't understand what's going on. I'm still compressing using H.264, and the settings seem to be identical.

Somewhere, back in my mind, I remember reading there were some potential intellectual property issues with using H.264, commercially. Sean had something intelligent to say about that, if I remember correctly. Can't find the thread, though.

It's also a matter of desinterest, and a general lack of understanding, that I stopped caring. It didn't work then, but it works now, so I'm happy. But down below, it keeps nagging me about what the difference is between the vast amount of options and how these codecs work.

We're going to the IBC trade fair this saturday (by Pond5 invite), to hopefully find some answers, or at least to find a proper direction towards those answers. If anyone has a question for me to ask, I'll be happy to oblige, if I have a chance.

Our August stats Revenue (Agency | change July 2012|August 2011)

iStock | -22% | +22%
Shutterstock | -12% | +48%
Fotolia | +19% | +15%
Dreamstime | +10% | -8%
123RF | -15% | +59%

Overall | -10% | + 28%
(via Stockperformer)

A massive, and unprecedented shift across the board for us (usual changes in 2012 are � 2-3%). Including the smaller sites, our revenue is down by ~5%.

Shutterstock Downloads totals are marginally down, but the lack of EL's and Signle Downloads in August dropped the revenues. EL's also went AWOL on iStock. Smaller sites, in general, performed well, especially DP, and also CanStockPhoto recovered nicely.

iStock performed poorly for the first time in 2012.

I think you need to read the info again, there was no change.  Corepics chart is incorrect, first the two years are 2011 and 2012 not 2012 and 2013 and second the targets were revised down at the end of last year to the same level as this year.
From the post at iStock:
"We are happy to announce that there is no increase in any of the RC targets over the previous year � all redeemed credit targets for all file types will stay the same for 2012."

Notwithstanding the comparison I posted yesterday is incorrect, (using the initial 2012 targets, in stead of the revised one) I think the tell tales remain unchanged. When they posted the initial RC targets for 2012, they were up compared to the revised 2011 RC targets. Later, they were revised, and the initial 2013 targets are identical to those revised 2012 RC targets.

In other words, instead of higher targets in 2011-2012, the initial 2013 are now par. I do think that tells us something about iStock's performance.

For a full overview:
Inital 2011 targets
Revised 2011 targets

Initial 2012 targets
Revised 2012 targets

Initial 2013 targets

The years are correct, though, but that's a matter of definition. The gained Redeemed credits for 2011 determined the royalty percentage for 2012. Hence, the RC targets for 2012, where set in 2011, and iStock refers to those as 2011 Redeemed Credit Tagets.