|
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 - jamirae
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33
126
« on: January 03, 2012, 11:14 »
127
« on: January 01, 2012, 18:51 »
Yeah, as long as you ticked the box (at the end of the survey) 'I took part in the 2011 Survey' you'll be entered in the draw
I tried. I ticked the box and entered my info, but it kicked it back saying you already had that address on file. Hope it works out. Either way, the info is even more useful than the prize 
yeah, me too.. I was wondering the same thing. 
128
« on: December 31, 2011, 10:26 »
I would label 45 as "middle age" -
"mature" is more like "senior" with gray hair. But a lot would be in how old she looks as that is what people will judge a photo by rather than the actual age.
129
« on: December 30, 2011, 22:32 »
They have seem to have fixed the connector.
My portfolio on TS grows daily.
not mine. just 12 of my 1,440 images on iStock have been forced..er.. I mean moved over.
130
« on: December 29, 2011, 16:00 »
I think a big consideration is being overlooked here. You're all assuming that buyers have all this time to shop around to find the best price. I tend to believe that buyers may do some price shopping but once they find a place they are comfortable with they tend to stick with it. Why? because it's convenient and it's a place they understand and know. that's what kept a lot of buyers at istock - once they found it they didn't have a lot of reason to look elsewhere. Now they do. Buyers have been pissed at the many price increases and the addition of confusing price collections. the site bugs have only added to the upset. Thus, they've started looking elsewhere - they find a site that works, has decent enough pricing for them and they move to it.
I really don't think buyers are constantly out there comparing one site to another. they just don't have time for all that. yes, they'll do it once in awhile when they need to, but in the end they tend to stick with the places they trust will get them the final product they are looking for.
For the most part I agree with you, IS also made the big mistake of overlooking the fact that many of its buyers are also contributors who also talk to other buyers. It is not so hard to change a supervisors position on the vendor you use when prices are also being raised in conjunction with best match changes that slow down the process of finding the images you need for projects. After all those supervisor think of man hours as more costly than a few extra dollars for an image.
totally agree. happened to me just the other day. My boss was looking for an image for a new "portal" page on our website. he turned to me and said "what is that site you use for images? istock..?" As he turned to his keyboard to pull up the site I responded "Just go to shutterstock.com or dreamstime.com " Because I knew he would freak out when all the crazy agency and vetta images showed up in the search. Plus we have buyer accounts at all three (SS, DT and IS) of those agencies anyway. He found some images at SS quickly which we sent to our graphics guy as examples of what he was looking for. In the past I would have gladly steered him straight to iStock, now I recommend different options.
131
« on: December 29, 2011, 13:42 »
I think a big consideration is being overlooked here. You're all assuming that buyers have all this time to shop around to find the best price. I tend to believe that buyers may do some price shopping but once they find a place they are comfortable with they tend to stick with it. Why? because it's convenient and it's a place they understand and know. that's what kept a lot of buyers at istock - once they found it they didn't have a lot of reason to look elsewhere. Now they do. Buyers have been pissed at the many price increases and the addition of confusing price collections. the site bugs have only added to the upset. Thus, they've started looking elsewhere - they find a site that works, has decent enough pricing for them and they move to it.
I really don't think buyers are constantly out there comparing one site to another. they just don't have time for all that. yes, they'll do it once in awhile when they need to, but in the end they tend to stick with the places they trust will get them the final product they are looking for.
132
« on: December 27, 2011, 13:33 »
The software itself requires a huge re-write if you want to have your images found by search engines. The default setting is to write names with underscores, which Google doesn't recognize, rather than dashes.
They do relative links everywhere, which is also a big programming no-no. So if you want to move your file to an SEO and user friendly directory structure like /stock-photos/animals/dog-playing.html, you will have a war on your hands. You can do it in the PHP or htaccess, but then all of your styles will be lost and you will have to change like a million different files to get them to be read again. They want everything kept to the root directory.
If you get Photostore you will have a ton of customization work to do. It might be easier to build a site from the ground up, or hire someone to do it.
Dan.. wow.. I knew it was some work but that just seems like a lot of work for sure! You've done some great stuff with WarmPicture!
133
« on: December 27, 2011, 13:29 »
I just wanted to report back...for all those naysayers who think it is a total waste of time to create your own site.
I was away for a few days and just got back last night. I had a wonderful surprise waiting for me. A buyer, who had previously purchased one of my images on an agency, realized they would need an extended license for an image. Rather than purchasing again from the agency with the correct license, they saw my direct link, realized it would be better to purchase from me directly, and did so.
So it appears that buyers DO care about the contributors, and buyers ARE willing to purchase from contributors directly. I got complimented on my images, took away virtually 100% of the sale (paypal keeps their share) and don't have to make too many more sales this year to surpass my sales on some of the agencies. And hopefully this will be a repeat customer.
Just a little encouragement for those of you who have taken the leap.
that's great! what is the link to your site? when I go here I get an index listing http://www.cathyslifestockphotos.com/ 
134
« on: December 27, 2011, 11:11 »
It's working again now, but I didn't do anything. Very strange.
must be gremlins. 
135
« on: December 22, 2011, 12:53 »
If this change is here to stay, It will no longer be worth uploading to iS for many independents.
Why does anyone imagine that any best match change is 'here to stay'?
Here today, gone tomorrow.
exactly what I'm thinking. If there's one thing that's 99.9% guaranteed, it's that the Best Match will never be stagnant. It's constantly being tweaked.
136
« on: December 21, 2011, 18:59 »
(a) A sort order shift is gonna hurt some folks but surely someone has to benefit?
Yeah. In my case it seems to be Bigstock. Sales are THROUGH THE ROOF yesterday and today. Easily double my previous best day there.
I couldn't understand it until I read this thread, but maybe it's becoming a hot spot for disaffected Istock buyers who don't want to get sub plans?
I think I need to join BigStock. I was thinking there was going to be link to them from SS (the "bridge to BigStock" --- am I thinking of the correct agencies?)
137
« on: December 21, 2011, 16:25 »
Hi Jamirae,
Two very good points indeed, thank you:
Hiding the images in order to gain space for the figures makes sense to me - problem might be that it means a large impact on the overall design - will however be happy to consider it.
Paid upgrade instead of ads is also an interesting option, however needs consideration as well: as the target group of this app is rather small on the one hand and the app might be heavily used on the other hand, a constant revenue stream by ads might be more profitable.
Anyway, we'll have a review meeting early January to talk through all the feedback we've received so far and based on the downloads and revenues decide about the further development.
Will keep you posted, if you have further feedback in the meantime, shoot!
awesome! and, for what it's worth, I can live with ads on apps like this that are very useful to me. though would, of course, still prefer to pay to have them removed . Thanks so much for "listening." Really appreciate the work you (an the team) do.
138
« on: December 21, 2011, 11:04 »
If you're considering enhancements, one thing I'd like to have is the ability to show or not show the latest downloads and most recent uploads filmstrips. If I had the option to turn those off I would imagine that I could then get more space for the stats and less time would be needed to load everything.
And I think it's nice that you can generate some income from the ads, although I would like to have an opportunity to pay for an ad-free version because ads annoy me to no end. I did pay originally for it and I'm not an iPad user so kind of feel a little cheated (like I'm subsidizing the iPad app that I don't even have) after being a long-time user.
Would you consider offering an ad-free version for pay? I know I paid originally, but with this complete re-write I think it would be worth it and I would pay (again) to upgrade if given the option.
139
« on: December 17, 2011, 20:35 »
wow! totally new app! great work I love it!
140
« on: December 15, 2011, 12:58 »
I have to agree with Jo Ann - I think your heart is in the right place but probably not the best method. I think just shopping and supporting a site that treats contributors fairly in itself helps to promote everyone's work.
141
« on: December 14, 2011, 13:18 »
I can tell you without a doubt that best match ranking for non exclusives is very poor. I'd been a diamond exclusive since 2006 and dropped my crown about a month ago. Not only did my commission drop over 50%, but my downloads immediately dropped at least 50% as well. I'd had pretty steady numbers for several years (i.e., no growth) throughout most of the best match changes, so this drop was a big shock and definitely linked to exclusivity status. Total damage has been about an 80-85% loss of income. It's going to take a long time to recoup that money on other sites because placement in the searches for new files has been tough where I've uploaded so far.
I hope not to discourage anyone from doing what they want to do, but be prepared for a bumpy ride if you want to drop the crown. I have no regrets. With no growth opportunity on istock, I had to make the leap to determine whether stock photography is worth my time at all. It's too soon to tell.
Leslie
I think you will see it fluctuate. I am not saying that there is a drop in exposure since you dropped exclusivity but it's only been a month for you and the best match and search will change. Having been non-exclusive for a year now, I only noticed a drop in sales (downloads) the last few months. Before then my sales (downloads) were about the same and sometimes higher than before going indie. There's definitely been some tweaking of the site lately, and I don't think it will stay that way, they are always adjusting and tweaking the search engine.
142
« on: December 14, 2011, 13:14 »
I would say that the drop in forum traffic IS a sign of the drop in sales. Not all of them, but certainly an indication. Many of the contributors (myself included) who now less frequent the forums also stopped purchasing, or significantly scaled back, from iStock. I used to purchase exclusively from iStock and now I can't think of the last time I bought an image there. One factor that keeps slipping here is the large amount of contributors who are also buyers.
143
« on: December 13, 2011, 11:59 »
Jamirae, how come u've ULed only 20% of your photos to the other sites? Because if you didn't have the time for MS, it would probably be best if you just remained exclusive. With such small ports there's no way to make up the losses since dropping the crown. Or am I missing something?
because I have to keyword them all in the metadata.. something I didnt do initially. and haven't had the time due to some personal issues this past year. staying exclusive wouldn't have helped me too much since I have a split port of vectors and photos and when they switched to the RC system I was screwed out of my 35% diamond royalty and dropped to 25% -- I don't regret it and have started building my ports at the other sites. Part of it is also because I am angry and hurt after being exclusively with istock since 2004, I had felt like I belonged to a 'family' but when they pulled all this crap with the "money isn't going to make you happy," the half-truths about the canister system and the switch to RC scheme, (plus a few other things), I felt betrayed and lost all loyalty for the company so am moving on. I've also had a lot of personal issues come up this year that have held me back from uploading, but my plan is to start getting my stuff online at the other sites in full force beginning next month.
144
« on: December 13, 2011, 11:37 »
this might explain why my sales have dropped to practically nothing. However, with iStock it's only a matter of time before the best match changes again so I'm not going to get my undies in a bunch over it just yet. It sucks, but I've also been on the other end when indies were more prevalent in the best match search than exclusives. I'm cautiously optimistic in that it will all even out in the end.
the best match changes suck but I think the buyers fleeing is the biggest concern for sales. This latest change may just be istock's way in trying to keep exclusives from jumping ship while sales appear to be at a dramatic low -- it's only a matter of time, though, before they screw with the exclusives again. well, that's assuming that history will repeat itself, as it usually does -- speaking from my own experience, of course, having been exclusive at istock since I started there in 2004 and then dropped last November (2010).
145
« on: December 07, 2011, 22:37 »
Well, here goes another one. Unhappy buyer 'tleedycorp', proudly displaying a Corporate Master badge, gives Istock both barrels in the Discussion forum;
"This site sucks now. Photo searches bring one of two possibilities, 1) 2 out of every 10 images are for editorial use only, or 2) "angry baby" appears in my search for Hong Kong. WTH?? This site is nearly useless to me now. Too bad I have 500+ credits to use. I might as well go back to Photos.com and the garbage they had there. Oh, and now practically everything is Vetta collection. Great. Another site that just wastes vast amounts of my time. But, like most things, I am sure nothing will change as a result of feedback. We will just be expected to pay more for a far less functional, and in my opinion, inferior and ineffective image search method. Too bad. This was very useful and helpful to us for a while."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338061&page=1
Strangely, if you click on their name you arrive at the front page. Maybe their account has been closed already?
interesting theories abound here. but personally I think this last buyer that left is just mad as hell and not going to take it anymore so he left. no price sliders, education on how to exclude vetta or other helpful tips will keep him there. It seems to me that he got frustrated trying to find images and so it was just the last straw and he's moving on.
146
« on: December 07, 2011, 10:45 »
SS was wise to have a submitters' forum, where suppliers can burble among themselves largely isolated from the public and buyers. That allows problems to be discussed without affecting the wider image of the company.
Anyone can see IS forums, can't they? Which is probably why they want to sanitise them.
some forums are only open to certain people. For example, there is an exclusives-only forum and a getty-only forum that are only accessible for people who are in those categories. I believe inspectors also have their own forum. So it could be set so that if you are a buyer only that you cannot see the contributor-related forums. So they could set it up that way if they want but have chosen not to do that.
147
« on: December 06, 2011, 11:34 »
A couple of questions...
1. Should I be able to sign into TS using my iStock userid & password? I just tried and it did not let me.
2. How do I search for my own images? Using my iStock userid yields no results.
1. Nope.
2. Try your istock name and then try your real name in quotes.
Correct #1 is No Connection from IS to ThinkStock accounts.
2. Something strange, I just had a new one show with my new IS Business Name, while my old images show with my real name. Some show up "fname lname" some show "fnamelname" one new image under the "business name". The one with two names was my real name, first import. The one with the two names run together was my old account name / business name.
Also when I search on IS contributor charts the name is the one with no space and if I try the new Business Name or adding the new business name, it says user not found.
So it's possible to have two, but Thinkstock could have any of three different name for any of us, and if you change your business name, the old one will still be there, plus anything new, will go under the new business name.
how confusing is that?!
148
« on: December 05, 2011, 10:46 »
I sincerely hope not, since I have deactivated at least 75 of my more commercial sellers, just for the reason of NOT going to TS.
Presumably if they hadn't been transferred when you deactivated them, then they would disappear from the queue.
How is the transfer going for those who are being forced in? Have they managed to shift more than a handful yet?
I'm now up to 10 images transferred over. four of them are from my most recent upload batch but the rest are completely random.
149
« on: December 03, 2011, 18:03 »
Yes, the script takes your myUploads page, goes through each page of that to get a list of all your image numbers, then goes through each image's history scraping the data, stopping when it reaches the "beginDate" in the script, which saves a lot of time. When myUploads is working, you can even uncomment a section that looks for 0 downloads in the initial step so it doesn't make the call to see if something is there.
Hopefully, this example will show IS what contributors have been clamoring for, for years. As long as you don't run it every minute, it shouldn't matter - they have distributed servers, afaik, which is why all the caching issues happen. It's not like it is one Amiga in the basement.
works fabulous! thanks for that, Sean!
150
« on: December 02, 2011, 17:06 »
woa! just checked and I see the downloads now through 11/24.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
