FYI: This poster is a spammer.  The Yahoo microstock group (called micropayment) has had a few issues with him in the past.

He is just trying to use the link provided to get referrals.  He doesn't really care what you think of his images.

If you want to check out his images, then use this link instead:

http://www.fotolia.com/p/169859

It removes the referral link from the end of the URL.

Sorry, but I have a problem when someone complains about something like this, and they do the same thing themselves.

Here is one of your images of a bird sitting on a rail:

http://dreamstime.com/commonsparrow-image2207831

which contains the following keywords: beak, claw, feather, fly, veranda

First, if someone is searching for the words beak, claw, or feather, they probably want to see a close-up of those animal parts.  They don't want to see every animal that contains those.  If you are going to add those words, then why not ears, eyes, blood, etc?

Second, although this bird might be in a veranda, there is no way to tell that from the photo.  If a buyer is searching on the word veranda, then this image would be considered spam.

Third, although a bird does fly, this one is firmly planted on the ground.

Another one of your images:

http://dreamstime.com/securecommunicationstower-image1727299

Contains the following long list of keywords:

aerial air airwaves area array atm australia barb barbed bendigo blue broadcast business busy cell cellular clouds commercial comms communicate communication communications coms data directions dish domes ears high hill hub industrial industrialized industry jardine lattice listening mast mobile net network netwrok one phone power powerful probe radiate radiation radio receive receiver relay rigid ross satellite secure shading signal sky soar speed steel structure sureveillance technical technology telecommunication telecommunications telephone television tower transmit transmitter transmitters tree victoria waves wide wire

I won't even start on this one, because I'm probably sure that you can see where this is going...

Finally, I have no problem with a few stray keywords here and there.  If I was searching for a bee and didn't want to see flowers, then I could just use "bee -flower" to remove the stray images.  It has been shown many times, that including keywords that are associated will help to sell an image.

The real issue is with true "spam": a photo of a church with the keywords "sex", or a beach scene with the keyword "business".

Quote from: StockManiac on April 21, 2007, 07:08

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site.  All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads.  Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

Also...even though everyone's stats are available on various sites, only members can view them.  That isn't the case on public forums, where the whole world can view them.  Food for thought.

Sorry, but as leaf pointed out, that just isn't correct.

If I go to IS and check your portfolio, I can see how many uploads you have, how many downloads you have, how many ratings you have, etc.  I can even see where you are located, what your business name is, and when you joined IS.

Most of the other sites contain similar info.

That is all searchable via Google, so the whole world could find those stats very easily.

Quote from: StockManiac on April 20, 2007, 14:09

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads.  And those artists are probably already onboard.  For example, Karen Lau (aka karimala) is listed as the #50 Top Photographer, but only has 50 downloads.

Um...a little off topic here, but where does it say that I have 50 downloads?  That's not right, so if there is a problem with my stats, I'd like to let LO know about it.

Everyone's stats are readily available on the site.  All you need to do is look at someone's portfolio and take the time to add up all of the downloads.  Almost every microsite lists the # of downloads someone has.

You are correct, my math was bad.  It should have added up to about 40.  I will correct the post above.  I have also removed your name/monicker from the thread.  Sorry to drag you into this.

My point was that even artists listed in the Top 50 Photographers on the site don't even come close to being able to participate in this new feature.

This is what I wrote to Rob (kiwirob)

Quote

Rob � I take offense to your post here.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=73536a7fc44af47645ff349f819f8b40&topic=1549.msg13198;topicseen#new

If you truly feel as though we are ripping you off (and that I am a twit), I would like to remove your photos from Shutterstock.
Just let me know � and ill be happy to end our business relationship.
It surprising to me that if you really feel this way you continue to be a member. Give me the word � I'll close your account.

I have a problem with somebody calling me a twit - and continuing to make money with me.

Not sure what the problem with *that* is.

But me not monitoring every single that is said about me or Shutterstock would be bad business sense.. Do you disagree Rob?

Regards,
Jon Oringer
Shutterstock, Inc.

Jon:

First off, let me thank you for coming onto this forum and being honest with us.

Second, let me say that I really like your site.  I believe that it is the best microstock site out there.

While it was wrong of him to call you a "twit", it was just as bad (if not worse) threatening him with the removal of his portfolio from your site.

After all, this is a business-relationship not a love affair, which means that there is some money involved.  His calling you a "twit" didn't remove a dime from your bank account, but closing out his account would remove some of the income that he receives from this industry.

Finally, many microstock sites would've kept all of the cash that was in his account as well (as part of closing his account), which is also an unfair practice.  I'm not saying that you would have done this, but there is nothing in your email that said that you would "cash him out" if he chose to close his account.

Others have already stated that he shouldn't have made those comments, but you need to be brought to task as well.  Just because you head a company, doesn't give you the right to treat others with disdain.

Quote from: nruboc on April 20, 2007, 11:36

Looks like Lucky Oliver is starting its Marketing effort - starting with you. Obviously this will make them money while putting the risk squarely upon yourselves - ala Google Adwords.

I find it funny that they're offering it free for 90 days but you need 100 downloads to participate. They know hardly anyone has 100 downloads, so not many will get the free placement. Thanks guys.

I'm not sure i understand your logic.

Then let me give it a shot.

This offer is pretty useless to 99% of the artists that submit to LO.

Only a handful of artists have over 100 downloads.  And those artists are probably already onboard.  For example, the #50 Top Photographer only has about 40 downloads.

For the rest of us, we will need to pay if we want to use this new service.

So they might as well have skipped the 90 days, and just said that it will cost in order for us to use the service.

Basically it was clever marketing...

EDITED to correct bad math and to protect the innocent...

I guess that is not the only one who has upsized images. Iophoto is in focus right now, especially here because of this thread. Reviewer cannot see everything all the time and if the quality is ok then who cares?

Why care?

First, because it is against the stated rules of DT and every other microsite.  Many sites would ban an artist for this sort of action, but being that he is new to the business I think that he should just get a warning.

Second, there was actually a very long thread at the Yahoo microstock forum about this very issue a short while ago.  Artists went so far as to call each other liars and cheaters for thinking about submitting images that were upsized more than the rules allowed.

Third, microstock sites continually reject an image for being "overly-edited".  They state that we should leave the editing up to the designer.

Fourth, you introduce artifacts when you upsize an image, so the buyer will not be receiving the quality image that they might expect.

I'm sure that there might be other reasons, but that is what I could come up with in a few short minutes.

Honestly, I'm not taking things personally.  But, you were replying to a thread I started and you did quote me.

Actually, IMO, you are being overly sensitive.  You might have started the thread, but there were 10 posts between yours and mine.  Not every post after yours was directed towards you.

You have your opinion, that is fine.  But you need to remember that others have the right to post their opinion as well.  Yours isn't the only one that counts.

This forum means many different things to many different people.

For some, it is a place to catch up on industry news.  It is much easier going to one source for information, than it is to visit a dozen various microstock sites and try and find the most important threads.

For others, this site is about accomplishments.  If someone has finally been accepted by a site, reached a certain level of accomplishment, been published, or found their image somewhere, they want to share that with their comrades.

For others, this site is about venting their frustrations that they are having with the various microsites.  For example, having a vast majority of images rejected, when those same images have been accepted everywhere else, can be extremely frustrating.  This is actually a large function of this site, because you can't post these sorts of comments on the microstock sites themselves.  If you do, they will lock or delete the thread, probably warn you, and possibly ban you.  And to top it off, they will ridicule you, because they know that they can.

Because you can't question microstock companies policies or post "negative" comments on their boards, people come here (or to similar forums).  So you will inevitably see more "negative" type posts here than positive ones.

What I also hope that this forum can be is a place where we (as artists) can band together to make the microstock industry a better place to do business.  Currently the stock sites are renegades that go by their own rules.  There are no industry standards for most things.  There are no industry watchdogs.  In other words, there is no regulation in this industry whatsoever.

There is an old saying:

Power tends to corrupt
Absolute power corrupts absolutely

If a site does something wrong, then we should hold their feet to the fire.  Otherwise, there is nobody to stop them from doing anything they want.  After all, these are agencies that are supposed to be representing us.

You can't expect every topic to be positive.  If that is what you are looking for, then just go to the site message boards.  There is plenty of that going on over there.  IS could come out and say that they will be reducing royalties, and people would line up to say "Thank You", "Great Job", "Keep it Up", blah, blah, blah.

But whatever we view this site as, I agree that we should try and be polite and respectful to those around us.

I also like the fact that this group was directly responsible for discovering and getting rid of an unethical reviewer (at StockXpert, I think) who had stolen our images and posted them on other micros.

To set the records straight: It wasn't StockXpert, it was Galastock.  And this is just one example where we came together as a community and fixed something that was wrong.  You can read the full thread here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=564.0

Every ship, regardless of size, needs a captain.

There already is a Captain (actually he is more like a General), and he is doing a fantastic job.

Many of you realize now that DT lied, but are stating that you don't care.  After all, doesn't someone like this deserve this?

Well, in my opinion, NO.  There are plenty of people who have built up their portfolios by following the rules implemented by the site.  Why should one or two people be treated special?

And if you do think they deserve this, then where do you draw the line?

Would you think it was OK if DT gave them a higher royalty without requiring them to go exclusive?  How about a 75% royalty?  Or higher?

Would you think it was OK if DT modified the Best Match sort order to include their images on the first page?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to have subscription sales?

Would you think it was OK if DT didn't require them to lock in their images for 6 months?

So if they deserve something extra, the question becomes how much extra?  Where do you draw the line?

And how is that fair to the other members on the site that don't get these special treatments?

On top of that, my guess is that a number of rules were broken in this case.  Not only was the 40 image/day rule broken, but so were other rules.

First, I'll bet that the images were reviewed faster.  While the rest of us wait 10-12 days or more for our images to get reviewed, their images probably only took a few days.

Second, I'll bet that his images got a higher acceptance ratio than most of us would have gotten with the same images.  While most of us receive silly rejections, their images slid through the queue a little easier.

Third, their images might have been keyworded for free.  Iofoto's images are on both DT and LO, and they seem to have different keywords on both sites.  For example, compare the keywords on this image between the two sites:

http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/1227139/spike_the_english_bulldog_wearing_lei_and

http://www.dreamstime.com/bulldogwearingpartyhat.-image2044530

It seems unlikely that someone would re-keyword thousands of images for each site.

Finally, we are all paying DT (via the royalty that they receive) to be our agent.  While it is their website, the sales of our images make it possible for them to have a website and a nice salary.  They care be treating us with disdain.  After all, we helped build up their company.  They care cast aside those that helped them get to the top.

DT claims that they treat all submitters alike, and that everyone must follow the daily upload limits (which are currently set at 40/day).

But don't believe the hype.

1. The current upload limit of 40 images/day started on 03/13/07 (see here http://www.dreamstime.com/archives.php).

2. Before 03/13/07, submitters were allowed to submit 100 images/day.

3. One of their newest members, Iofoto, now has 3,750 images online.  I will show that getting this many images up in such a short time period would be an impossibility for most submitters.

4. Iofoto's first image submitted is # 2037002.  It was uploaded sometime between 03/04 and 03/05/2007.

5. From 03/04 (when Iofoto submitted his 1st image) thru 03/13/07 (when the new upload rules came into effect), there are 10 days.  Submitters were allowed to submit 100 images/day during that time frame.  So someone could have submitted a total of 1,000 images (10 days * 100 images/day) during that time.

6. From 03/14 thru 04/11/07 (today), there are another 29 days.  Submitters were only allowed to submit 40 images/day during this time frame.  So someone could have submitted another 1,160 images (29 days * 40 images/day) during that time.

7. If we add the two time frames together, the most that a normal submitter could have submitted during that time would be 2,160 images (1,000 + 1,160).  Yet Iofoto managed to get 3,750 images approved during that same time frame!

8. Of course, this does not take the following into consideration:

a. The current queue wait is around 10-12 days.  So images that were submitted during the last 10-12 days would still be in the queue waiting for inspection.  So we would need to subtract at least 400 images from the total (10 days * 40 images/day).  This leaves 1,760 images (2,160 - 400).

b. Nobody has a 100% acceptance ratio.  According to another thread on this board (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1177.0), the highest acceptance ratio from people on this board is around 90%.  Most acceptance ratios are much lower.  So at least 10% of the images would be rejected, or 176 rejected images.  This leaves 1,584 images (1,760 - 176).

But mysteriously, Iofoto seemed to get 3,750 images online.  Over double the amount that most others would be able to do.

So it seems that the rules only apply to some submitters and not to all.

        

(As you can see I'm speechless)

If you have an image on DT that is close to image # 2037002, please post the upload date for that image.

EDIT: My initial calculation is 03/12/2007.  Let's see how close I can come to the actual date.