|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 206
51
« on: January 06, 2019, 02:55 »
Same here just a white page 
Oh and the moderators need to do something about the appalling spam on this forum the usual topics have been drowned out by this krap
Yes! It's down. And what with the spam?
It's back again now
52
« on: January 06, 2019, 02:26 »
I'm getting a completely blank page when I try to connect to DT.
53
« on: December 25, 2018, 05:31 »
Highest commission was $362 on Alamy almost 10 years ago. I've also had $120s from SS but the only place still delivering the odd 100+ return from a single sale is Fine Art America (I've had $200, $170 and a few $50s and 60s there in 2018, but that's generally for travel image wall art).
Lowest? Well, how about some of the Alamy refunds? -$50 here -$100 there.
54
« on: December 25, 2018, 03:46 »
Peace on Earth?
That would be nice.
55
« on: December 22, 2018, 03:45 »
I guess its not about the "best quality". It depends on "best sale able content". Meaning lifestyle would sell good at signature collection. The typical pets and dogs images are to expensive at signature collection.
No. It's a marketing ploy designed to persuade people to spend more money at iStock in order to get the "best" rather than settling for "second best". They're taking advantage of the fact that image quality is a subjective judgement, so while you and I might think image A is better than image B they can claim that their judging it by different criteria. But the bottom line is that they are telling purchasers that it is better for them to pay for the higher priced image.
56
« on: December 21, 2018, 07:06 »
If I ran an agency, you can be guaranteed I would put the content of those exclusive to me first, over those that can be gotten at a dozen other competitor locations too...
But only if it made more profit.....
57
« on: December 21, 2018, 06:41 »
I just noticed I got a DACS payment as far as I know only Alamy do that as well. They took 85% of it of course but its better than nothing...maybe the other sites trouser the lot?
Whereabouts is that data?
58
« on: December 21, 2018, 01:19 »
For me, the reason is simple: It works where I am and Paypal doesn't. So there are agencies I'm barred from because of payment problems. Their reliance on Paypal for payouts has cost me a lot more than any losses I might suffer in currency conversion fees.
59
« on: December 18, 2018, 22:13 »
True but Adobe is very picky.
It doesn't strike me as being any more picky than iS or SS were in the days before they opened the flood gates - maybe even less picky (e.g. they've accepted a "Rembrandt lighting" version of a subject that the others claimed was badly lit, though I don't agree that different is always bad).
60
« on: December 18, 2018, 11:07 »
@ Mat - are you saying that the acceptance ratio is not a factor in the search algorithm (there are only so many factors available to be used to structure a search return from millions of images)?
He said the other day that the only factor is your portfolio size. But I'm not so sure now
That would be counterproductive. It would reward people for uploading masses of poor or similar images and penalise talented newcomers with small, high-quality portfolios.
61
« on: December 18, 2018, 10:22 »
@ Mat - are you saying that the acceptance ratio is not a factor in the search algorithm (there are only so many factors available to be used to structure a search return from millions of images)?
62
« on: December 18, 2018, 08:51 »
Someone posted that deleting an unfinished upload could count as increasing the number of rejections, thereby harming the search placement of the rest of that contributor's files. The idea that removing files that hadn't yet been inspected could affect search placement was quickly ruled out, but nobody questioned the idea that getting rejections from the inspectors would harm that contributor's other files. So, if that's right, then the answer to your question would be "yes".
63
« on: December 18, 2018, 03:01 »
Hey Mat,
I've got a question regarding the title of the file. On most other sites, we are required to enter both a title and a description, but on AS only a title is needed.
Is it better to keep it short as a title or to create more of a description including for instance the type of shot, concept, backstory etc.?
Thanks for your help!
Found the answer for those who want more info on the subject:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/titles-and-keyword.html
Yeah, that's useful. Thanks.
64
« on: December 18, 2018, 01:56 »
I'm wondering what sort of percentage of acceptances is needed before a portfolio starts getting punished. I've had a few for reasons that I understand but with older files needing uploading I'm wondering how close to the borderline I should stray. What to do with film files, for example, some of which get accepted while others get grain rejections.
65
« on: December 17, 2018, 07:59 »
I've reported the domain to CloudFlare and they will raise it with their hosting company.
CloudFlare won't usually tolerate this sort of thing, so they should revoke their account and then we will be able to find out who their hosting company is and raise a complaint if they don't act on CloudFlare's advice.
Thanks for the clarification of what the site is, and for your action on it. I didn't understand from the original post.
66
« on: December 16, 2018, 09:42 »
that website does something strange, diverting to a "checking your browser" page. I didn't wait to see what comes next. My point about sleuthing wasn't semantics. If the site allows people to use it to remove watermarks then it is a tool and by itself is not doing anything wrong (after all, photoshop allows you to remove watermarks, even if it would be hard work), if it is redistributing images then that is a different matter and should be brought to the attention of the sites concerned, but that may be a bit difficult if there aren't any watermarks.
67
« on: December 16, 2018, 08:04 »
In any case, if it works why would anyone here want to advertise it? Sleuthing is surely about spotting images in use that haven't been paid for, not about highlighting tools to let people do that.
68
« on: December 16, 2018, 01:17 »
I don't see any sense in this thread. Women can't hold the camera or what?
No they can't they are too busy having babies, cleaning house and fetching their husband's cocktail after a busy day at the office 
And that, of course, is why I do the cooking (it's not just to prep for photos). There's only so much compassion and forgiveness one can show the little women when she screws up the dinner (again!!!). It's hard being a man!!
69
« on: December 15, 2018, 04:37 »
I'm 99% sure it's just a matter of clicking the box.
70
« on: December 14, 2018, 05:40 »
...And if I've bungled the keywording of my red admiral, at least I should be able to get Isabella's tiger right now (the tiger with six legs instead of four).
You can go back and amend the keywords in Adobe and their positions of course 
I guess that's after review, not while they're pending review as the data seem to be locked. (Nothing approved yet)
71
« on: December 14, 2018, 02:56 »
posted in error
72
« on: December 14, 2018, 02:44 »
It seems to me that with Golden Gate bridge someone looking for a generic bridge might be happy enough if the Golden Gate was offered, but with a red admiral the person looking for the butterfly would always search on the two words, not on admiral alone (but might not use the term "butterfly", so that ought to be separate.
On the other hand, someone searching using the scientific latin might want examples of any or all the butterflies in the genus Vanessa or might want to be speific about the red admiral or painted lady and then would search on Vanessa atalanta or Vanessa cardui. So the logical terms for these two insects seem to be:
Red admiral,
red admiral butterfly,
Vanessa atalanta,
Vanessa,
butterfly,
Painted lady
Painted lady butterfly
Cosmopolitan - but I'm not sure anyone looking for a cosmopolitan butterfly would use the first word without the second, so maybe no need for this
Cosmopolitan butterfly,
Vanessa cardui
Vanessa
(no need for separate cardui or atalanta because someone looking for the species would always use the genus as well, as, for example, in Homo sapiens, not just sapiens).
Anyway, that seems to be the logical upshot of Mat's initial response. And if I've bungled the keywording of my red admiral, at least I should be able to get Isabella's tiger right now (the tiger with six legs instead of four).
73
« on: December 14, 2018, 01:29 »
Thanks, Mat.
Oddly enough, the other common butterfly in that genus is not an admiral at all, it's a painted lady (Vanessa cardui), though in the US you call it the cosmopolitan.
74
« on: December 13, 2018, 16:26 »
It's the same thing as all those pictures of Earth floating in space that were all the rage among a group of microstockers a decade or so back (might still be for all I know, but I think there was some kind of crackdown on them). There are lots of space images available from NASA.
75
« on: December 13, 2018, 15:06 »
Take a Red admiral butterfly. Should it be keyworded as "Red, admiral, butterfly, Vanessa, atalanta" or "Red admiral, butterfly, Vanessa atalanta"? Obviously, someone searching for an admiral (or a Vanessa) doesn't want an insect, but all the keyword examples I see are for stand-alone words.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
