|
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.
Topics - heywoody
26
« on: February 05, 2013, 19:15 »
Discuss... 
27
« on: January 16, 2013, 11:22 »
OK possibly adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 but..
I know there has been lots of discussion and explanations around the extreme SODs ($120 - $300 commission range) and it still doesnt seem to make sense I mean why so much more than an EL? Sensitive use really doesnt fly as lots of the images sold in this range have zero potential for sensitive use. However, if it represented individual deals along the lines of what is happening with IS and Google it would make perfect sense. Of course some basic differences e.g. decent commission and the possibility to opt out.
28
« on: October 19, 2012, 19:27 »
29
« on: October 08, 2012, 05:47 »
Was originally going to ask about whether RF or RM was a more appropriate model to aim at but if the min file size in RAM is 24 MB which means about 8.2 MP, all existing work is just too small and will need a serious PC upgrade to generate new stuff that size 
30
« on: October 03, 2012, 08:58 »
Just for fun, decided to do a "video nasty" image and have submitted "... blood spattered mutant zombie carrying severed head and machete..." to SS, DT, FT & 123. I expect rejections. See how well you know the sites and guess which ones will reject because of the subject matter 
31
« on: September 22, 2012, 12:35 »
Lots of folks pimp images on the SS forum - pointless exercise?? It occurs to me that the "popularity" search is influenced by views even though no counter is visible as the only explanation why files that are online for approximately the same time with less sales are often higher in this search. Maybe not so pointless?
32
« on: September 14, 2012, 10:06 »
I never though I'd see a file rejected ANYWHERE else being accepted at IS but it's happened. IS (AR 35% being real picky about what I submit) have accepted an image rejected by FT (AR 95% on pretty much anything) 
33
« on: August 31, 2012, 17:22 »
Lots of threads but, thankfully, not all could be categorised under these headings. I actually don't mind someone having a good old rant but I find a lot of the boasting very irritating - possibly as I don't have a lot to boast about 
34
« on: August 22, 2012, 04:56 »
Hovering on the Rank link at the top used to offer a choice between IS and DT something like the choices on the Tools link - now it it is the choices on the Tools link. Just curious...
35
« on: July 26, 2012, 07:55 »
I just had this image rejected on 123 for potential copyright - can't see anything on these vehicles in SS's shutterbuzz and wondering if anyone is aware of restrictions generally? It's pending on some other sites and wondering if I should pull it.  This one is currently available on IS, SS, DT and FT - maybe british warplanes are copyrighted and german ones not ?? 
36
« on: July 20, 2012, 09:02 »
So, I just noticed that my IS earnings extracted by Microstock Analytics are about 18% higher than reported by my account details in IS they are absolutely spot on for all other sites.
OK, there maybe some issues with the program but 20+ years in IT indicates that, if this was the case, virtually everything would be wrong not just a few selected files. It looks like there are some fairly major integrity problems in the IS database not properly normalised so the same data is in different places and out of synch. Some examples from the log:
Error: iStockphoto: Subscription Sales mismatch - 32 vs 44
Error: iStockphoto: Id 12766918
Error: iStockphoto: Subscription Sales: 1
Error: iStockphoto: OnDemand Sales: 43
Error: iStockphoto: Enchanced Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Custom Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Prints Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Delayed Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Partner Sales: 54
Error: iStockphoto: Subscription Sales mismatch - 45 vs 70
Error: iStockphoto: Id 14539675
Error: iStockphoto: Subscription Sales: 6
Error: iStockphoto: OnDemand Sales: 64
Error: iStockphoto: Enchanced Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Custom Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Prints Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Delayed Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Partner Sales: 25
Error: iStockphoto: Subscription Sales mismatch - 21 vs 22
Error: iStockphoto: Id 14920627
Error: iStockphoto: Subscription Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: OnDemand Sales: 22
Error: iStockphoto: Enchanced Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Custom Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Prints Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Delayed Sales: 0
Error: iStockphoto: Partner Sales: 23
Error: iStockphoto: 3 files mismatched out of 28
In other words, we either have a difference of 38 potential downloads not reported on my account page or some of their data is just screwed up of course the lower figures could be the correct ones but I dont like discrepancies like this.
Out of curiousity, I had a look at sales for 14539675 on the site. It shows 45 IS sales and 25 PP sales (as above) with total royalties of $101.19. However, if you dump all the individual sales into Excel and add them, the total is $102.03. OK, tiny difference(still too high to be accounted for by rounding to the nearest cent) but they should be exactly the same.
Bear in mind we are talking a tiny port of 28 images here are you guys with 100s or 1000s of images seeing anything like this?
Maybe there's some simple explanation everyone else knows about?
37
« on: July 17, 2012, 14:42 »
For the 2nd time recently I noticed that someone had been added to my ignore list (which should be empty) - I certainly hadn't done this deliberately and can't see how it could happen accidently - anyone else see this.
38
« on: June 22, 2012, 11:44 »
Got the below from IS. While, naturally, I'm over the moon about the $0.05  it looks like we have some bugs in the bug fix: They dropped my royalty rate - I'm at the absolute bottom of the royalty heap, nowhere to drop in what universe is 5% of $1.06 = $0.02? Image ID 0018524378 ain't one of mine - some poor sod is seriously out of pocket  Hello, Between January 1-4 a bug occurred which incorrectly dropped your royalty rate by one level, meaning you were paid 5% less on downloads during that period. We have run a script to identify downloads that should have been paid at the higher rate between Jan 1 and Jan 4, 2012. Your account has now been credited with the outstanding amounts. Below is a summary of affected downloads. FileID Amount Paid Correct Amount Difference Date ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0018524378 $01.04 $01.06 $00.02 1/30/2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0014920627 $00.66 $00.69 $00.03 1/2/2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Amount Paid: $0.05 If you have any further questions please contact Contributor Relations. Best Regards,
40
« on: April 25, 2012, 07:08 »
So, 117 images online with no rejects but latest 2 are rejected. There doesn't appear to be a reason given and the images concerned are certainly better than many of those accepted. Do folks in general experience a degree of inconsistency here / are there any particular types of image that are more likely to get a reject?
41
« on: April 17, 2012, 08:42 »
I'm not sure what parameters are involved but guessing isolated objects that have partly transparent elements that can't easily be extracted with a magic wand. I feel a whole lot of exclusive images involving glass and ladies with see though clothing coming on Funny no announcement unlike IS who announced and never delivered....
42
« on: March 24, 2012, 16:02 »
Supposing a loaf of bread costs $1 and the price is falling all the time because of great wheat harvests. Someone corners the supply of wheat and it suddenly becomes much more expensive and a loaf of bread now costs $5. Your average bread eater has a choice; pay the $5 or give up bread.
Its not the first time Ive made this suggestion but figured it was impractical because of the vast numbers of people submitting to stock sites. However, I notice that very tiny sales in the order of 12 credits in a week results in a 7 day ranking of around 3000 on FT. FT is not the industry but the only site I know of that produces this kind of information. Extrapolating, Id suggest that less than 3,000 people are making $100 per week from MS thats a fraction of minimum wage where I live. Further, probably less than 1,000 are making a living and maybe dozens who would be classed as high earners.
So heres the question, really aimed at those getting multiple thousands of DLs a month, but anyone feel free to join in:
Using SS style licensing as an example, if a site paid say $2 commission for a sub, say $20 for an OD and $150 for an EL for exclusive CONTENT (could never see the point in contributor exclusivity) downloads, would you buy into it bearing in mind that there would be a period of great pain while the supply is drying up on the low paying sites?
43
« on: March 05, 2012, 17:41 »
Could be just a blip but Feb was 50% above normal and I seem to be getting more dls per week than I'm used to getting per month - more dls than even SS in the last week.
44
« on: February 21, 2012, 14:26 »
Just had an image approved at IS (strange occurrance in itself) but the really strange bit is that it's still pending at SS and FT
45
« on: February 20, 2012, 07:54 »
So.... Seeing as the "grandfathering proposal" has been shelved, decided to give this a go and uploaded initial 10 on Friday night. Quite surprised this morning (I gather reviews can take some time) to see they are approved. Few questions:
Can't see anything in a portfolio - is there normally a delay & how long?
Can I just start uploading a whole bunch of stuff now?
47
« on: December 19, 2011, 08:47 »
I notice that quite often the same image is not matched across all sites. The merge option is great once these are identified but identifying them is the problem. Would it be possible to introduce a thumbnail sort by similarity or even filename?
48
« on: October 10, 2011, 06:53 »
Why have a pseudo currency for buying stock photos when almost everything else you buy on the internet is a simple real currency transaction? I note that SS deals in actual money.
49
« on: October 01, 2011, 08:19 »
Wow - see FT has dropped a tier and 123 is promoted!! Maybe time to look at 123?
50
« on: September 17, 2011, 18:03 »
PP sales are all subs @ 28c right (at least at the bottom of the heap)? I seem to have had a single dl @ $2.36 - is this something like an SS OD or even an ultra ultra cheapo EL?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
