|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 58
76
« on: June 23, 2015, 16:58 »
I just realized that I have sales from the previous months reported these days:
November '14: extra $0.19
January '15: extra $0.76 = 4 x $0.19(?)
March '15: extra $11.59 = 61 x $0.19(?)
1. It is hard to comprehend why sales from November '14 are only reported now.
2. See the above numbers. Is it only a coincidence that the extra amounts are multiple of $0.19? Aren't these shameful $0.19 sales purposely delayed, since it is so hard to track them when buried so deep in their dysfunctional reporting system?
There seems to be a bunch of sales for PP attributed to Getty Images from November to April reported over last weekend - some are 19c but higher amounts also - your 11.59 might be a single sale or maybe a big and a few tiny.
77
« on: June 22, 2015, 17:05 »
Or a lot of liars.
What would be the point in lying if you are anonymous? Showing off is pointless if nobody knows who you are.
Showing off is pointless, period. Doesn't stop people though...
78
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:56 »
Yep became indie in Feb 2013 so RPI went off a cliff at that point!
In think indie RPI in general did the same around then when they got rid of the P+ and buggered up the pricing - I went from around $1 per month to about 10c.
79
« on: June 21, 2015, 12:32 »
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)
I can count on my fingers the number of images that have made more then $300, never mind $1000 or $10,000 ($10K seems like cloud cuckoo land for an individual image on any micro but who knows...)
@Grace - just bear in mind the DT take a hefty cut of the sale price (think about 60%) which needs to be factored into your decision.
You're right DT take 50% so that means your file only has to make $150.01 to do better than that. Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.
I don't doubt it but there's a hell of a difference between 150 and 10K 
80
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:11 »
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)
I can count on my fingers the number of images that have made more then $300, never mind $1000 or $10,000 ($10K seems like cloud cuckoo land for an individual image on any micro but who knows...) @Grace - just bear in mind the DT take a hefty cut of the sale price (think about 60%) which needs to be factored into your decision.
81
« on: June 21, 2015, 06:00 »
What makes sales data useful is when you can group the same image from site 1 and site 2 and see the total sales from that one image over all the sites it is on. The only one I know of right now that can do it is MicrostockAnalytics
That is the one tool I looked at. I'm guessing he uses you image matching algorithms to match across the sites using the thumbnails - not perfect but pretty * close and you can establish missing links manually. When I looked at it it had good canned views of the data but didn't see how I could get at the underlying data to create my own. My DB is way, way less sophisticated but does have a master table that links across the sites so I do have this functionality. Pain to set up initially but simple to maintain on on an ongoing basis for anyone with basic SQL or Access query skills. I can pump monthly details of new images and sales across each site on a monthly basis into excel which then does automatic tracking of stuff like port size, rpi, rpd etc for the individual sites and overall. Similarly another spreadsheet automatically tracks dls and sales for each individual image across the sites.
I could be interested Mike
For some reason, I figured you might be J Do you by any chance have MS Access? If so, happy to give you the whole thing as Im interested to see how it behaves with bigger ports and sales than I have and to see how practical it might be for someone else to set up.
82
« on: June 20, 2015, 17:32 »
I built a little tool for my own use which pulls port and sales data (each individual sale) from the top 5 into an Access database and allows me to slice and dice, export to Excel etc etc. This is not a slick "product" like what is commercially available and not really suitable for distribution. However, I could fairly easily adapt the code to work in individual excel files for the various sites.
Given the tools that are already out there, and I haven't looked at them in any detail, is this something anyone would be interested in if made available for a nominal sum?
83
« on: June 20, 2015, 14:49 »
I gather you guys would get a relatively hefty RPD for G+ so doubt it's the same - they're not very frequent and have ranged from $0.12 to $19.35
84
« on: June 20, 2015, 07:58 »
I just had an $11 getty sale from 7th April reported last night (attributed to "getty") - the 19c sales are just reported as "partner portal" as opposed to getty or ts.
85
« on: June 20, 2015, 05:09 »
You haven't seen any similar sales in your pp have you? I'm on a PC so I don't use android stuff. Maybe Getty sales? My total earnings jumped a few dollars overnight, but it doesn't seem to be affecting the total for my stats in May, so it's all a bit mysterious.
These are flagged as PP but, when I've got these, it can be VERY late, e.g could be for April reported now - think they're getty related based on the date format returned by my script.
86
« on: June 18, 2015, 17:05 »
Once again the group extends its traditional warm welcome. Maybe we could learn something from someone who has actually bought images...... Sorry I was forgetting we know everything already
Yeah, it doesn't do any harm to point out some of the harsh realities but that can be done without stinking up the place with condescension 
87
« on: June 18, 2015, 16:56 »
Sometimes it is a server lag in connecting the number of sales to the level but it eventually catches up. Check again in 24 hours. The only thing you can do to make sure is send the image ID to [email protected] and ask. An admin will investigate and they always reply.
Call me pedantic but have sent support tickets with no response so maybe they mostly reply? 
88
« on: June 16, 2015, 16:20 »
I think this is the first "good news" change I've seen from an agency that might actually be good news.
89
« on: June 13, 2015, 10:02 »
I'm no expert on US income tax arrangements but have been involved in systems deployments for US companies that included a withholding tax element and did cater for this type of situation. Some organisations do a bit of planning / analysis and design a solution that caters for their various stakeholders, some slap on a band-aid.
90
« on: June 13, 2015, 05:53 »
There is a solution, you know. Quit iStock.
He'd have nothing to complain about then.
I'd certainly have less to complain about but I enjoy a good rant  . Take away complaints and forum posts would be a little thinner on the ground. The "rules" in a properly designed IT solution would have accommodated this as it is a blindingly obvious scenario
Not if compliance with the IRS processes require them to do things in some particular way.
I believe that we can assume that this is down to the IRS - since the same conditions apply with respect to Kindle authors (if you Google this - bear in mind that many of the conflicting answers pre-date the recent revisions). Anyone looking to claim back an over-payment (including as a result of incomplete details) needs to deal directly with the IRS (which I think means submitting a US tax return). That's the system.
A competent systems analyst would have identified this obvious scenario and put in place rules that would have prevented the deduction in the first place. Putting in place exception scenarios to handle user mistakes is a significant consideration putting use cases or requirements lists together.
There is an interesting contrast with the way the PP overpayment was handled.
No this comparison doesn't work. Because it is not about contributors trying to get money back from the IRS.
This point has some marginal merit in a situation where the deduction details and money has already been sent to IRS and they send returns for each individual payment to contributors. US taxes most likely operate differently to here but, where I live, tax adjustments (PAYE or as an independent contractor) either + or can be handled without going to revenue until such time as final returns are made for the year. In fact, one can only look to Revenue for tax refunds in respect of previous tax years.In any case the point I was making was more general. They made a big effort to chase down individual contributors over pennies because its their money. How successful would they have been if they adopted the forum posts and email approach there?
91
« on: June 11, 2015, 16:45 »
My point about communication is that something would be triggered by the payment process itself - I'm sure lots of others don't visit the forum or pay attention to their mails.
There is an interesting contrast with the way the PP overpayment was handled. IS mistake but it didn't stop them going to the effort of recovering trivial sums (less than being discussed here) from thousands of contributors.
92
« on: June 11, 2015, 06:03 »
Look bud, you need to find a less stressful hobby if you're getting so worked up over a couple of dollars.
The conversation has nothing to do with the few dollars - explanation given ages ago and accepted. The conversation is about the IS fan boys saying the company handled this in and effective and professional manner and I'm simply pointing out that your standards in this regard are very low.
93
« on: June 11, 2015, 05:26 »
A well designed IT system would accommodate this situation automatically either by holding payments pending completion of the tax form or by auto adjusting balances.
Not necessarily. Systems are defined by the rules which they implement (using rules here in the systems-analytical sense). Unless you know those rules you are not in a position to judge whether a system is well designed or not. The rules of this system are likely constrained by two potentially overlapping sets of requirements - i.e. IRS process / regulation and the contractual obligation to pay.
{Also _ This is just like -> if you were to overpay on the PAYE system in Ireland (or the UK) you would have to claim it back from the government. Not from the employer.}
Wrong on both points: 1. The "rules" in a properly designed IT solution would have accommodated this as it is a blindingly obvious scenario - I seriously doubt there was any actual systems analysis performed here just an instruction to hack whatever dodgy code they had already. I would be hugely embarrassed if I missed something like that in one of my specs. 2. In Ireland, overpayments of PAYE are refunded by the employer where new information is notified within the current tax year - one only has to contact revenue in the case over overpayments due for previous years.
94
« on: June 11, 2015, 04:28 »
it seems many people take more offense to the agree / disagree buttons than intended. People get worked up for getting a single -
The point of it was to simply give a reader an idea of how popular / unpopular an idea was... if most people agreed or disagreed. Sometimes someone can make a comment and it looks just as valid as every other comment until you see how many people actually agree or disagree with it.
That said - how things are supposed to work and how they work in practice are two different things. The disagree button seems to be spreading more hate than it is help. Perhaps that button should be done away while keeping the agree button.
I could easily be wrong but I'd imagine most adults can quietly agree or disagree without the compulsion to vote. I also suspect that most of the +s and, especially the -s, come from folks with very entrenched positions and don't really reflect popularity / agreement across the membership.
95
« on: June 10, 2015, 18:54 »
If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person. iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business. Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.
While I agree that doing something immoral / illegal is not justified just because the other party is doing so, the whole file a complaint thing doesn't really hold water as nobody sane is going to get litigious over a few bucks. Is there somewhere to simply report evidence of IS not meeting is contractual obligations?
96
« on: June 10, 2015, 18:43 »
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility). Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money. However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there. Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS. This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.
IS have many tens of thousands of contributors, do you really expect them to start making individual adjustments to the many thousands who doubtless failed to take any notice of the many weeks of reminders of forum posts and emails, to pay back tiny amounts of money to people who couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on their own businesses? As I said before, there is a principle in taxation that you are only taxed once on income, so any tax IS have deducted won't be a million miles from what you would have paid in your own country, where you won't have to pay tax a second time on the already taxed income, so really, you are using a tiny tiny stick to beat IS when the fault lies with you anyway. How much are we talking about? A few dollars? I'm the first in line to criticise IS when the deserve it, but in this case the lack of competence and imagination is down to you buddy. Perhaps you should also read Difydave's post too, where he states "The IRS then gives iStock permission to pay you the full amount without the witholding tax being taken.
iStock can't just pay the full amount to you without permission from the IRS or they would become liable for the tax money. "
Here's the thing, "buddy". A well designed IT system would accommodate this situation automatically either by holding payments pending completion of the tax form or by auto adjusting balances. Not everyone lives on their forum or waits with bated breath to read the next bit of spam they issue in case it has something significant to say.
97
« on: June 09, 2015, 17:16 »
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility). Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money. However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there. Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS. This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.
98
« on: June 08, 2015, 16:21 »
OK that's as good of an explanation as I'll get, thanks.
It still seems weird that they can't make retrospective adjustments (not as if they send individual payments to revenue for each contributor) but ,given their incompetence with the big stuff, it's no surprising they can't handle anything small that's out of routine.
Of course they could make those adjustments but they won't because it's too much like hard work 
I think I read that it's an issue the contributor has to take up with the IRS.
Yes, that is indeed their position but only because it is their position and they don't have the imagination or competence to handle the matter like a professional organisation. No doubt withholding tax is sitting in their account earning interest in the meantime...
99
« on: June 07, 2015, 07:13 »
Possible to support a family decently on $30K in the US???
100
« on: June 06, 2015, 17:59 »
OK that's as good of an explanation as I'll get, thanks.
It still seems weird that they can't make retrospective adjustments (not as if they send individual payments to revenue for each contributor) but ,given their incompetence with the big stuff, it's no surprising they can't handle anything small that's out of routine.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
