|
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 - Gregor909
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
101
« on: August 29, 2008, 08:25 »
WOOHOOO!
My first 30 cents...
Wow congrats man, what are you going to do with all that money? 
102
« on: August 27, 2008, 10:13 »
I just found out that photos.com shows mostly the oldest uploaded stuff from StockXpert. Come on you programmer guys, I'm missing out on sales! 
103
« on: August 25, 2008, 16:09 »
Last update from Steve on the StockXpert forum: "All vectors should be included in Photos.com. We are aware of this issue (that not all images can be found yet) , and the team is currently working on all reported bugs". Good to know! 
104
« on: August 24, 2008, 02:05 »
I have found several of mine on photos.com, but their search engine is really strange (as is bad). For example, I have a silly image of a purple hair scrunchy (which I did not find on photos.com). I did a search for scrunchy and found about 20 results. When I narrowed the search by adding hair scrunchy, it went up to several thousands because it added ALL hair images. When I then tried to search for purple hair scrunchy, it added ALL purple images to the mix, increasing the number of images even more 
Try searching with "match any". Anyway, I still can't find most of my portfolio. I can find all the photo's, but none of my vectors.
105
« on: August 20, 2008, 19:25 »
Didn't find most of mine either. I guess they need to do some more programming!
And you can't click on someones portfolio.... I hope they fix that as well!
106
« on: July 26, 2008, 04:04 »
what is the purpose of new rank if you dont get anythng?
You can brag about it to your friends!
107
« on: July 26, 2008, 03:50 »
I don't see vectors on Photos.com. What is this change going to mean for vector artists?
108
« on: July 07, 2008, 07:21 »
You should join the dark side and start using adobe illustrator!
Exactly! Same thing happend to me. I became an un photographer but now I'm an illustrator, a special breed ,higher in the food chain than photographers!
110
« on: June 26, 2008, 16:54 »
Anybody here know of a good skin ointment? Those pesky ankle chains are giving me raw skin again.
And you think you have enough time to apply the ointment between the whipping?
111
« on: June 25, 2008, 12:10 »
Shutterstock offers the EPS file only, just like Istock does. And this is Istock's policy: http://www.istockphoto.com/illustrator_5.2_duplicates.phpI can't speak for SS, but they might feel the same about this issue. Other sites like DT and StockXpert sell JPG's and EPS files from the same image, so it makes more sense to upload different color versions there.
112
« on: June 25, 2008, 11:43 »
Are we talking about vectors?
I don't do color versions with vectors, customers can change the colors themself. Besides, it makes your portfolio look less interesting. Customers can become irritated if they are looking for something and the same file keeps popping up all the time.
Now we are talking about SS; I had a download today from my newest vector that isn't visible in my portfolio yet and can't be found with the search engine either. Anybody knows how that is possible?
(sorry for being offtopic, didn't want to make a thread about it)
113
« on: June 22, 2008, 09:05 »
The announcement said that bad keywords would be REMOVED. There was NOTHING stating that good keywords would be added. Yet there are plenty of people ticked off because now "lazy exclusives" can just add the "minimum 5" and let the inspectors do the rest of the work. Then there are others who are ticked off and ranting because they don't want any keywords added to their files. THEY HAVE NEVER SAID THAT KEYWORDS ARE GOING TO BE ADDED.
You're right! But by "lazy" I mean people who copy/paste keywords from similar files without bothering to delete the irrelevant ones! Sorry for the confusion.
114
« on: June 21, 2008, 09:43 »
a white van drove past my house 3 years ago and I took a shot of it. Took me 17 minutes to create a clipping path around it and post it on 4 sites. Since then that image has sold around 1000 times. Hey that was me!! Where is my cut?
115
« on: June 21, 2008, 05:51 »
There is nothing wrong with extra advantages for exclusives.
But this looks like they do it the other way around, bullying the non exclusives!
I first thought that this new service would require extra manpower. But come to think of this; reviewers have to spent time checking keywords anyway, so why not deleting one or two irrelevant keywords if there is no blatant spamming involved? The sooner the image appears online the sooner the image brings in money for both parties. I wonder why all stocksites are not doing this already. Rejecting the image means more work for the contributor and more work for the next reviewer as well. So actually I think this is a wise business move.
BUT... denying this service to non exclusives and even announcing to aggressively reject more non exclusive images is very unprofessional in my opinion. Punish the real spammers, give them warnings, no matter if they are exclusive or not.
Istock makes me feel like a dope dealer who is doing business at the backdoor of a pharmaceutical factory.
They don't make me feel like a worthy contributor anymore. How should I be motivated to become exclusive this way?
I made the top 50 twice on SS last week, SS is my nr 1 earner again.
StockXpert is doing great, several credit sales every day, receiving 50% commission.
Had an XXL sale the other day--$7,50 for one download.
My last few uploads which are doing great everywhere, are doing miserable on Istock.
Is all this due the non-exclusive search ranking? Can Istock reassure more steady sales if I become Exclusive?
I can find enough exclusives with less sales than I do, so why should my sales increase so spectacularly?
I don't need business cards because I don't do commission work.
I don't need higher upload limits because I don't work so fast.
I don't need lotteries ( again very unprofessional, you're dealing with professionals here, not with Cola drinking-teenagers watching Mtv !)
Now give me a good reason to go exclusive Istock!
116
« on: June 20, 2008, 08:13 »
Are you asking who said these implications are ludicrous? Or are you asking who made these generalizations? I assume it is the former and not the latter since you yourself said:
So Let me see if I understand this right. Exclusives can fill in all the crap they can get up to ... That's a lott of extra manpower for all the lazy exclusives.
No I was asking who made these generalizations, because I sure as hell didn't. "All the lazy exclusives" leaves enough room for exclusives who are not lazy. Where did I say that all the exclusives where lazy? And in the context of the subject it was not necessary to mention that there are also lazy non-exclusives. ( note; not all of them)
117
« on: June 20, 2008, 03:59 »
I for one do not appreciate the generalizations being made which imply that all exclusives are lazy conniving keyword spammers who plan to purposely monopolize the inspectors' time. It's ludicrous. Said who? 
118
« on: June 19, 2008, 19:32 »
So Let me see if I understand this right. Exclusives can fill in all the crap they can get up to, and we just supply 4 or 5 keywords and finish the rest later if the files are accepted? That's a dumb move if you ask me. That's a lott of extra manpower for all the lazy exclusives. And the non-exclusives who will have to be extra carefull, supply less keywords--- files will be less accessible for customers--- bad business for Istock as well!
119
« on: June 16, 2008, 19:09 »
Judging by the figures quoted by many who have been contributing to getty photodisc via istock I think for most it's little more than vanity publishing. Certainly the not worthy of the initial "Give up your day job" hype.
I believe this is true. Getty's shares have declined more than 55 percent before it got sold. Its shares fell 10 percent in August, when the company lowered its full-year profit estimate because of competition from microstock rivals. In November, it reported a third-quarter profit of $25.7 million, down 31 percent from a year earlier. Can we give up our day job by submitting to Getty? I don't think so! If there was some hard evidence that it was hugely to my benefit I'd consider it, but for small contributors it doesn't seem to make sense.
Good point. My portfolio is even smaller! And I don't need a higher upload limit because I don't work so fast.
120
« on: June 09, 2008, 07:59 »
yay it's there for IStock, thanks leaf!!
Wow easy man, you'll blow up your engine, that is if the cops don't get you!
121
« on: June 07, 2008, 10:47 »
How to improve vector sales?
Improve your skills, and produce stuff that sells. That's my experience.
You don't need lightboxes, image of the week, free images,Istock hot shots, contests etc. You don't need all that extra exposure and you don't need to be exclusive.
Produce quality and it will cream to the top.
If you don't believe me.... look at the Istock Hot Shots, image of the week, free image of the week and the contest winners. Their sales aren't always that great, and sometime even pathetic.
Istock puts those images there just to show the clients that they have variety. They don't need to give exposure to the bestsellers. Bestsellers find their way to the top on their own.
122
« on: June 06, 2008, 09:10 »
You probably should care that it takes longer. From what I understand, supposedly, the best match gives preference to images that have higher downloads in a given timeframe. That timeframe starts at the point of upload. If that's all true, that means exclusives automatically get a headstart in the search and potential for downloads, which leads to higher positioning in the best match.
I can remember Steve from StockXpert saying that this timeframe starts at the point of approval on StockXpert, not the point of upload. So I assume it's works on IS the same way! Not sure though.
123
« on: June 05, 2008, 18:45 »
Yep, got he email too!
Now click on the link on the bottom for more details........(click)......... "You do not have permissions to view this page."
They're trying to seduce us with dirty tricks. What . is there? A secret exclusive forum or something?
124
« on: June 04, 2008, 18:18 »
There are portfolio's behind me honking their horns, passing me by and making rude gestures. I need to pimp my portfolio!
125
« on: June 03, 2008, 06:33 »
Having vectors will also influence our average because they can't go below one dollar, well..... now with subscriptions they can!
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The smallest amount you can earn on a vector is based on a 1 credit image, and the smallest amount you can earn on a photo is based on a 1 credit XS image. Is the low not the same?
You're right! After the price change I thought there where no more 1 credit vectors. But it seems there are. At least I don't have any! http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54819&page=1Our current vector prices are 1, 5, 10 and 20 credits. What we'll be doing August 20th is raising these to 3, 7, 12 and 25.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
