I'd agree. They should put newer files toward the front along with popular files. If it's a good image it will start selling, become popular, and stay at the front. If it doesn't start selling after a couple or three weeks start moving it down in the search.

I also think contributor performance should somehow be factored in. If a contributor has good sales performance it probably means they're submitting quality sellable images and should be given preference. If they have really poor sales performance over a long period of time it may indicate they're submitting crap and/or aren't learning to improve. This might help to keep poor images from the front. And will start weeding out people who are submitting stuff that isn't up to par.

Is this not what Shutterstock do? It is the only site that we get downloads the same day we get our photo approve.
As far I know, no other site do this for me. And of course, no surprise I have the most download with Shutterstock.
But this only from my perspective.

Shame, to have to lose your copyright ownership because your estate is not retroactive ,etc.
Then again, if this person was a good aide of Ansel Adams , then maybe deserve more than the beneficiary to own the master work.

Hello, good report.
I am also new, but also not good for report so I am sorry no report to give you.
But for me is like this:
SS - the most sales and the fastest to make money for me, even new images.
FT - the least sales but the faster to gain for EXt Lic.
DT - the best for old old old images but the worst for new stuff.
IS - the best single $ per dl but the difficult to bigger portfolio .

of course, I have to say, SS give me the most downloads but also same time the smallest $$ per dl. But if I increase my portfolio I believe SS will make still best money for me because I get download the same day my photos get approval.
No other site do this for me, so I believe SS placement for search is the best.

This my own story. And this, I give SS all the top attention for my new stuff
because also noting SS is my newest agency and already earning same $$ than
IS, BigStock, FT which I have already 2, 3 years. 
When people told me I must have SS I did not believe it. Maybe I should believe
2 - 3 years earlier, then I am sure I making more today with SS bigger portfolio.

Big stupid dummy should listen more to Shutterstock people . It si no big surprise SS is number one.
I hope the abbreviation I used correctly ? FT IS SS DT ? Thank you.

yes, i see now, no point.
 better to buy mem card,  you don't risk loss.
also no time wasted doing backup transfer.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/181765

This model is suing for US $2 million over use of her image.

As someone else said, it's not even anything that micro would approve. Wrong white balance, look more like a polaroid. I am not sure what it got to do with Vampire.
But yes, she has a look that is very pretty but the quality of the picture is like snapshot.

I think model will not care if you use picture if you get paid 25 cents, or $2. Maybe the fact that famous band use the picture, she might think photographer get million dollars for use of her photo which was maybe she get no money or anything from photographer.

The use of her picture with the word vampire is not nice too. You don't want your daughter or girl friend to be used in a title like Vampire Weekend.
My thinking is this.

Knygle,
strange...
Dreamstime used to be your favourite agency. But then, one day, you decided to go exclusive with IS. Suddenly Dreamstime became a horrible place to be. 'The' most horrible agency.
Quite a sharp turn around I would say.
Was it because of the 6 months lock in?
But you were a long time contributor. Weren't you aware of it already?

People are blinded by personal conflicts, but the reality is that Dreamstime is a reliable, solid agency.
I like them and I sure hope they stay this way for a long time to come.

I think like that too Eireann. allso Dreamstime new review is sometime mystery too  expecially when new reviews
use mostly subjective reasons. but no big deal for me. My sales are good for the oldest stuff and no sales for new stuff, so no reason to worry for new uploads because I don't give new stuff anymore.

Shutterstock is opposite. New stuff get download instant. So I like balance with Shutterstock for today and Dreamstime for 2 years older pictues in port

Quote from: louoates on July 17, 2010, 09:02

Yesterday IS rejected a vertical shot (for lighting and artifact issues) and accepted a horizontal shot OF THE VERY SAME setup shot seconds apart.

I could go on and on....

Know what you mean.

I think it is different reviewers. I too get often rejection for "poor lighting" of the same shoot.
eg. latest from agency , no need to mention who, 7 approvals, 3 rejection.
All shot with same position and same composition.

I just let go, and say thank you to the reviwers for my 7 approvals.

Quote from: melastmohican on March 04, 2010, 13:00

First, I am not native English speaker so I do not understand all nuances of this language. Why flipping burgers seems to be the worst insult here. "You are lousy photographer you should be flipping burgers instead". My mom always said to me that it's not shame to do any work.

Unlike what's been said above, my take on 'flipping burgers for a living' is that it's a hot, sticky, sweaty, stressful job with zero respect, which leaves your hair and clothes (under the naff uniform) stinky every day, yet pays peanuts.

Yes, Sue's right. It is usually used to compare with something same that is not so fantastic too.
Like Racephoto , sub 25 cents per download? I prefer to flip burgers. But now in many places you don't flip burgers,
you busk in the street sing songs with your guitar and make more money than people in the office  .

#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

I think everyone agree that microstock approval system bar is too high for the money they give .
Also, based on what you put here, or from others and my own experience too, the point and shoot pictures
sell more than the "dog" type (studio setting, many thoughtful time , composition, lighting,etc) .

But also, most will not go past the reviewer for "poor composition", "no focus point", "snapshot".etc..
all subjective.

Then we see this example and we shake our head.  You are right, maybe so, buyers maybe want snapshots.
Only but first how we can get the snapshots point and shoot stuff pass the reviewers

Its a subjective game and always a crap shoot for me.  For example,  I had a couple of recent  shoots.  Whittled the 600 pics to about 20.  Cleaned them up and key-worded.

  Split those into two folders of somewhat similar subjects so that each submission did not seem to duplicative.  Same Quality, Similar Composition, Same camera, same lenses, similar camera settings.  The first batch was 30% accepted, the second batch 100% accepted.  The only real difference was one was submitted on a weekday and the other on a weekend.

So, 100% approval was on weekday or weekend?  The discrepancy ?

Quote from: Neustock Media on June 16, 2010, 13:59

Guys the concept of "Freemium" although we do not like it is here to stay. I have heard various movers and shakers on the management side of micro talking about it over the last 6 months as the next natural step of their marketing campaigns.

"movers and shakers" should do more work doing real promotion and less moving and shaking.

Hear Hear sjlocke. It takes as much energy to do real promo that will profit both site and contributors.
Maybe movers and shakers should move and shake for no pay. Then I too will agree freebee is a good idea.

Year 4: Only 33% increase in port over the year and by now some of your older best-selling images will have been bettered by others. There's less new stuff to learn and help you.

Year 5: Only 25% increase in port. The agency collections are now growing at about the same rate as your port and, with older images dying at about the rate you can produce new ones, your sales will probably stagnate. You've hit the wall.

Exception is Dreamstime, your oldest pictures still outsell your new. So you stop giving new pictures and sit on backside to let old porfolio sell