Hi Keith

I uploaded a batch of a few hundred, and they were all rejected for " The composition and lighting of this image limit its stock value." or similar.
Now, these are not the best of my work (I was planning on uploading chronologically to get my whole port up in an organized manner), however these are photos that have been accepted and are selling moderately well on other stock sites.

This is in no way a rant. You can set any quality standard you wish, and a photo selling on another stock site doesn't mean anything.

I just wanted to check if I just encountered an overenthusiastic reviewer, of if your standards are really that high, in which case there's no need to waste time uploading further.

My account on zymettrical is kgtoh.

Thanks.

Edit: Just read the part about "We sell from $3 - $100, so higher standards". Some of these photos are on the Macros, which sell considerably higher than $3 - $100.

RT,
I'm as suspicious as the next guy (maybe more suspicious), but Chumley has, IMO, provided some really useful insights and advice, and has linked to a small but very professional portfolio
Compare this with some other "super successful pros" who've bragged about their massive success, but never provided anything useful except some rants against microstock companies, and never offered any evidence of their portfolio except some random fanart.

That said, chumley, I would love to see some of your work on the macros.  I think it's every microstocker's dream to someday compete in the "big leagues", and any insight is most welcome.

My opinion of the logo:

"Limited Commercial Value--We do not need this image at this time."

and

"Too Simple--Overly simple vector."

Quote from: kgtoh on August 15, 2008, 09:32

Since we seem to be uploading random artwork with absolutely no relation at all to stock, here's one of mine from years ago 

Having the capacity to produce fanart has no relation to proving the capacity to create a commercial stock portfolio.

kgtoh, seriously.. I am no more, giving you answers.. you edited your post 3 times.. the first one was pathetic enough! 

Sorry, I make a lot of mistakes when I'm laughing uncontrollably

Holy sh#t, Howard Hughes is still alive!

Howard Huges is still alive and making $3000 a month from microstock.
It's a top-secret portfolio though. shhh. be vewy vewy quiet.

You can believe in whatever you can.. Sometimes I mention about my port or work.. It is not because I want to show off, It is because mentioning it, is useful to back some ideas..

How is it impossible to discuss microstock agency policies without bringing up how much you earn per month? Everyone else does it.
It's like being unable to discuss gasoline prices without comparing bank accounts.

edit: genitalia reference removed

YOU CAN DO IT!!!!

I really have nothing to prove.. I don't feel the need for putting the links here..

one day, if I feel it would be good for me I will.. Or probably in 2 years time if I work hard enough you will know me anyway.. I will have nowhere to hide.. 

If you really have "nothing to prove" why do you constantly mention how much money you make, how high your sales are, how great your portfolio is, and how well you understand what customers want?

Practically every thread you've been in, you've boasted about your high sales.

We do have several of the "big boys" around here, but they do not constantly toot their own horn.

Until proven otherwise, I will consider you just a complete noob who talks big.

Like I said, Ironarrow is not obligated to show me anything.
I'm not obligated to believe him.
I learned long ago not to believe something because someone says it's possible.
If you want to believe him, go ahead. I'm not obligated to convince you otherwise.

Thank you for the detailed and interesting analysis.

It's quite interesting to see the very small number of microstock pictures being used by these big magazines.

Thanks for correcting my English.

revised version:

Math is not your strongest Suit and that seems to include simple multiplication and division, possibly also addition, subtraction and counting.



Also, FYI, correcting people's spelling mistakes on an informal forum in order to create some sort of comeback is the lowest of the low. Oh, the shame. tsk tsk.

No offence, Litifeta, but as evidenced in your other posts, math is not your strongest suite.

Quote from: domencolja on August 05, 2008, 05:35

and offering PPD options for EPS format vectors ranging from 50$-250$, I confess I was delighted. PPDs priced as mid-macrostock is good news and on top of that on a site that I would never get anyways.

So you think that 50-250$ sales are posible at Photos.com ?
For me it looks like "everything for 1$" shop with one display with 250$ prices. Not same kind of buyers.

I agree. They are definitely not targeting the $250 an image crowd.  The promise of a $250 is, to me, a magician's distraction while they sell EL's at 30 cents.  It is very obvious to me that StockXpert has moved from a "win-win" relationship with contributors towards one where they are looking at any means possible to exploit contributors. Perhaps it's desperation on JI's part.  This what scares me, that I have to continually look over my shoulder to protect myself.

I think that's what drove previously loyal StockXpert contributors to bail out. It's not only matter of revenue from EL sales (although for larger contributors, EL sales from other sites can easily be more than total sales for StockXpert, so it's worth protecting), StockXpert also broke an unspoken trust that they, in their role of representing contributors, are looking out for their best interests.  It became as much an emotional issue as a logical one.  You will notice that the contributors that deleted their photos (and were the most vocal about it), were the ones who had been with StockXpert the longest and were the most emotionally connected to StockXpert. It's a shame because, from a business standpoint, you should cherish your most loyal stakeholders first.

(copying my post from the StockXpert forum:)
Speaking for myself personally.

I previously had subscriptions opted in. I have nothing against subscriptions per se; I realize it's a valid business model, although perhaps not palatable to everyone.

I have now opted out of subscriptions and opted out of Partner Licensing. I am keeping participation to a minimum because I realize that, no matter how sweetly it's phrased, any new developments and revenue models are to the benefit of StockXpert/JI and not me.

I will still continue selling at StockXpert because business is business. However, the trust is broken, and I will be out of here at the first sign of any hanky-panky.