|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - ShadySue
14351
« on: January 13, 2011, 13:15 »
Is the search working for you guys?
My search button all of a sudden died (was alive yesterday) and nothing can get it to work.
Fail fail epic fail...
Well, in a way it's working. I typed in 'horse' and it worked. I then typed in 'black' to the left hand refine box, and it worked. However, just after I hit search on 'black' I noticed a file in the 'horse' which didn't have a horse in it. So I hit the back button to get back to the general horse page, and got a page of blanks which needed a couple of refreshes to bring back the thums.
14352
« on: January 13, 2011, 12:13 »
See Content that is "Rights Managed" is excluded? I am talking about fresh images with no sales history.
Non-submitted content is fine to sell RM.
And even unsold accepted content (once deactivated from iStock).
14354
« on: January 12, 2011, 18:07 »
edit: so kelvinjay suggested deactivating the image twice. He says it's been that way for a year. Well, I've been deactivating regularly for the past two months and I haven't had to do everything twice. Until now. So now, we're being punished for deactivating by being made to do everything twice. I can't wait to be done with this site.
It's taken two times for me for as long as I can remember. Occasionally one time will work, but not reliably.
Like SENDing sitemails this last couple of weeks.
14356
« on: January 12, 2011, 17:07 »
Excellent!
14357
« on: January 12, 2011, 16:33 »
Yup, I've never seen so many buyers posting with issues before. There were always complaints when prices went up, and sometimes browser issues, which were often easily solved (even if they shouldn't have needed sorting), but now the problems are more serious, more persistent and need courage with codes to get anywhere.
It's just ridiculous that the contributors are having to write code to work around the failings of the paid coders. Does no-one at HQ have a sense of embarrassment?
14358
« on: January 12, 2011, 11:40 »
Sales are already falling, which is why the RC targets were 'revised', and it's going to get really embarrassing for them when they announce the 2011 RC if they make any attempt to be realistic about them. They won't of course. They'll probably announce 'no change' when they do and then revise them downwards again towards the end of the year or earlier if enough exclusives start to kick up a fuss.
I guess it depends exactly which exclusives and what kind of a fuss. Anyone lower than Diamond is easily dispensible. If the Diamonds (and BDs) drop exclusivity but keep uploading, iStock stands mostly to gain, beyond any value of 'exclusive images', and other sites have their own 'exclusive images'. If a lot of Diamonds and BDs pulled their ports altogether, it would make a difference. But it would take a lot of nerve/chutzpah for a BD or high Diamond exclusive to do that.
14359
« on: January 12, 2011, 11:35 »
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? 
Yeah, I just noticed they made Kelvin a moderator. Too bad.
Although he was always a vocal and clever critic of IS policy when necessary, I had noticed that recently his posts were very much towing the company line. Now his complete 180 in the forums makes sense.
Very clever of Istock. Silence one of your most effective critics by putting him on the payroll.
Yep. Another sellout. At least he is locking threads tactfully, even though they are still getting locked.
I totally expect sjlocke to be next. 
I don't think Sean can be easily bought silenced. It would have been really easy for him to stay off the iStock forums and here: most of the other top hitters are 'invisible', and he hasn't so far.
I can't imagine he hasn't been asked to be an inspector at the very least.
14360
« on: January 12, 2011, 11:35 »
[double post, sorry]
14362
« on: January 11, 2011, 19:56 »
Are we supposed to be adding "valentine's day" to all of our images of couples??
Only if you want the to be Vetta.
14363
« on: January 11, 2011, 19:44 »
So in my Stats it says Photo: 317 credits (yeah, the buyers are boycotting me too) and on the next line it says Vetta/Agency: 317 credits. I haven't have a Vetta sale since 19th December -essentially the price hike killed my Vettas and the sale doesn't help. So why is it saying Vetta/Agency: 317 credits?
It's obviously 'a bug'. Hope they're looking into this one too.
Can't they do anything right first time?
Its not a bug. Main and V/A royalty %s, while are separate, are determined by the combined total of all photos.
It's meant to be like that? H*ck, whose bright idea was that?
14364
« on: January 11, 2011, 19:20 »
So in my Stats it says Photo: 317 credits (yeah, the buyers are boycotting me too) and on the next line it says Vetta/Agency: 317 credits. I haven't have a Vetta sale since 19th December -essentially the price hike killed my Vettas and the sale doesn't help. So why is it saying Vetta/Agency: 317 credits?
It's obviously 'a bug'. Hope they're looking into this one too.
Can't they do anything right first time?
14365
« on: January 11, 2011, 18:46 »
Don'tcha love iStock's flexitime. Andrew said he's have the live link to the new ASA in 'one second', but that was times 17 minutes ago. Of course, it will be live by the time I post this! 
14366
« on: January 11, 2011, 05:19 »
What everyone says. Plus a lot of low sellers are probably the sort of nice photos that 'casual browsers' who would never buy like to have a look at, whereas lots of the high sellers aren't really of interest to any but the buyers (business shots etc.)
I hadn't thought of spider bots counting as a view. Anyone know if that's the case on iStock? Could explain a lot if so! E.g. I haven't had a sale since Saturday, but as it happened I fetched stats via DM before I went to bed and then again now and have had 318 files viewed in 9 (overnight, GMT) hours (and no sales) but noticed a lot of views whizzing through for my Christmas and Chanukah files (which are linked on iStock, so would presumably spider out).
14367
« on: January 10, 2011, 19:58 »
What on earth is going on with search today? Twice I've made a search and ended up apparently searching on 'source' as a keyword, when that wasn't what I entered. This most recent time I typed in Edinburgh, and then clicked on Edinburgh as it appeared below the search box and got 'source'. Earlier, only the top few thums on a search showed, and several refreshes made no difference (FF) I switched to IE, did a search, clicked on an image, then clicked the back button and came out of my original search. I'm sure it's not the only reason I have no dls today or yesterday, but it can't be helping.  Of course, I can't report it on the forums.  Added: why is is so inconsistent? The last time (just before I typed the above) I typed Edinburgh in the top search box, it offered me Edinburgh, Edinburgh Castle or Edinburgh (Holyrood), This time, it's only offering me Edinburgh, and I've noticed this sort of thing before too.
14368
« on: January 10, 2011, 18:19 »
I had a look at the agency collection lightbox.
The claim 'cultural diversity'. I looked by best match and by age. While there was some degree of ethnic diversity, I saw little if any cultural diversity.
Altogether, the images looked very 'samey'.
14369
« on: January 10, 2011, 18:18 »
I thought the second world was the communist eastern bloc. (with first world being the allied capitalist west and the 3rd world being those that were unallied). 3rd world has come to mean undeveloped though and 2cd world has been dropped.
Yes, I don't know if the expression 'second world' was ever used, but it was the communist bloc which was implied. I try not to use the term 'third world', though old habits die hard, but Developing World I thought was OK? @nosaya: I don't understand the logic of "I don't use PC terms like 'developing nations' because SOME of these places still have 30- 40 years to go before I would consider them developed." - isn't that exactly what's meant by 'developing'?
14370
« on: January 10, 2011, 16:48 »
I had a look at the agency collection lightbox.
The claim 'cultural diversity'. I looked by best match and by age. While there was some degree of ethnic diversity, I saw little if any cultural diversity.
14371
« on: January 09, 2011, 19:03 »
I was reading somewhere in someone's blog that rights managed license sell more than RF, however the return per image is lower, as the usage is very restricted.
Are some RM licenses as low as micro prices...is that true?
So is that true that the Royalty Free return per image is higher and generates more sales, because it has less rescritions?
As always, it depends. For a start, your title is Editorial v Royalty Free, but your question is about RM v RF. Editorial is a type of image, Royalty Free is a license for use of an image, as is RM. Some RM licenses can be pretty low: these are generally either 'novel use', e.g. for a private blog, or for newspaper use, as some newspapers have heftydiscounts for bulk buying. That said, e.g. iStock gives their biggest bulk buyers big discounts (which aren't advertised on the site) and some reported sales by iStockers via Getty have been as low as 6c, yup, six cents. I had an RM sale on Alamy in early December for $500/$300 to me. I've heard that on average, RF prices are higher than RM on Alamy, but that's only the tiny proportion of Alamy contributers who participate in the forums. On Alamy, editorial images (i.e. where a model and/or property release would be needed for commercial use, but the release is not available) can only be sold RM, never RF (I say that because of your title, just to be clear).
14372
« on: January 09, 2011, 10:58 »
Have they still not realised that thieves operate 24/7, so they have to do so as well?
14373
« on: January 08, 2011, 20:22 »
I noticed via DeepMeta that my 'files viewed' both on Thursday, then overnight Thursday/Friday were about three times the usual for 24 hours (i.e. I had about 6x the 'normal' views), but I had very few sales during these times. Maybe they were trawling, but found nothing of interest.
Which is, of course, fine by me, as I don't want my images being sold elsewhere with me getting nada.
14374
« on: January 07, 2011, 19:43 »
Do any of those who are whooping with relief that they've been spared this year (seem to be a lot on that thread!) not realise that their happy position will no doubt be unsustainable next year.
First they came for the Jews ...
14375
« on: January 07, 2011, 19:12 »
I have no idea how people make plans moving forward.
There has always been little point in uploading less desired images, even if unique.
There seems little point in everyone competing in the already overpopulated, if popular, areas.
Like I said in another thread, it'll be all about finding a niche which no-one else has access to, yet is still wanted by buyers. I'm afraid my brain doesn't work that far (I've never been able to second-guess buyers), and I don't have unique access to anything I'd be able to sell photos of.
Totally demotivating.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
( such are the dreams of the istock contributor)
