|
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 - pr2is
51
« on: September 08, 2007, 23:09 »
Added keywords, thanks guys. Will give it a week or so and report changes.
52
« on: September 08, 2007, 22:57 »
Fill out Title, description and keywords. If Description field has camera brand in it by default, make sure you erase it. The rest just leave as it is.
53
« on: September 08, 2007, 13:07 »
Thank you yingyang. I'll wait a bit for more suggestions so I edit keywords once.
LOL, 'healthcare and medicine' got mapped in by CV, my miss... obviously not appropriate.
55
« on: September 08, 2007, 10:26 »
Guys, I have an image that seems suitable for a clean experiment. Uploaded 10 days ago, zero views at this point. I was able to come up with whole 14 keywords for it. Anyone proficient in effective keywording would be willing to help with this one so I add them, write down the number of views at that point to discount the views generated by your clicks and see in a week or so how much it influenced the visibility? http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4128409Thank you
56
« on: September 06, 2007, 19:57 »
That's a good point hatman. Adds different dimension to keywording. PS. May I add "Going postal" to your impressive list of suggestions?  (Not sure if this joke is internationally understandable or specific to US)
The problem is trying to think like a buyer. In sharpshot's postbox image it would be easy to just think that buyers are looking for a picture of an English postbox and leave it at that. But actually, a buyer might be searching for something that is 'typically English' which is a different kettle of fish altogether. Given that most of the agencies are based in America, the 'typically English' search is likely to be much more popular than 'postbox'.
57
« on: September 06, 2007, 08:09 »
Just tried again, worked well. Hope it's fixed and not just a fluke
58
« on: September 05, 2007, 20:58 »
Nope, second day of troubles. Isn't it strange that they do not respond on their forum when such significant hiccup occurs... no e-mail, no announcement, no ETA for a fix...
59
« on: September 05, 2007, 13:07 »
"Contact", OK... but "email"? Wouldn't it be really pushing it? By the standars being established aacross the sites, this one would seem like a keyword spam to me if used for the photo of a mail post box. What am I missing?
60
« on: September 05, 2007, 13:00 »
However in gerneral I want to keep it close to nature... 
Thank goodness... that was tongue-in-cheek by me Your Penguins is a breath of fresh (antarctic) air among all the shaking hands business-women in headsets.
61
« on: September 05, 2007, 12:50 »
I don't do that. Some of those obscure non-sellers do get some rare surprizing sales. So, why not... it's not like their maintenance costs me anything. I am not sure there is any downside in keeping them online unless there is evidence that buyers actually look through one's portfolio and run in disgust if see early uploads being not up to par... Rady to change my mind though if presented with evidence
62
« on: September 05, 2007, 11:16 »
I don't know if that tells us much bjorn... there are too many factors involved in photo's popularity, not sure keywording can be singled out like that as a deciding or even significant factor. Sharpshot's experience in a post above is different, just simple directly relevant keywords were enough to make photo a good seller (obviously it was a good photo to begin with)
63
« on: September 05, 2007, 07:42 »
Do you need more than 10 or 15? My best selling photo on istock has 15. I have a dog house that has sold 68 times with just 8 keywords. I could add another 40 but that would use up my time and might annoy people who were not looking for a dog house.
When I started there, I tried to put in as many keywords as possible but now I use a lot less.
I often wondered about that myself. Let's say, there is a portrait of a pretty woman in a magically looking forrest surrounding. Is there point in adding keyword "magic"? How probable is it that a buyer includes this word in his search? Or, if it's an attempt to make the net broader in hope that someone looking for an image of a magician at work stumbles on woman's portrait and likes it - does that happen or he just gets irritated? I guess someone buying photos could shed the light
64
« on: September 05, 2007, 07:26 »
I am terribly sorry for off-topic leaf, but I just had to ask... Freezing, how come we haven't seen any smiling Penguin with a headset, two business-Penguins shaking hands (flippers?), Penguin typing on a laptop... come on man, get to work, possibilities are endless!!
65
« on: September 04, 2007, 07:29 »
66
« on: September 01, 2007, 17:29 »
Do cruise ships, boats, yachts fit?
67
« on: August 29, 2007, 10:49 »
Oh finally! Hated that cumbersome search for the right category. Even inthis somewhat circumsized form it makes it easier.
Sales do pick up at BigStock, sudden 3 sales this morning - not common for me over there. Nice to see
68
« on: August 28, 2007, 22:44 »
Fotolia has outsold my Shutterstock portfolio for the past 3 months in a row.
Wow, you serious? I never complained about FT, they are fine in my eyes, but outsell SS? That's impressive. Hatman, no offence please but I don't think that's a good advice to "forget DT" or any opther of big 6 for that matter. You see constantly this sharp divergence where same agency performs great for one contributor and very poorly for another. You just never know whose shooting style may find just the right fit in what agency. You are not getting sales at BigStock, others swear by it... To me SS is unbeatable money-producer with FT distant second, yet as you can see from the post above there are photgraphers getting better return on their effort from FT. A lot of people swear by IS while for me it's very lucklustre site (at least so far, many say it takes a while to pick up). Soooo... I just wouldn't risk to tell anyone to skip any of big ones based on my personal experience and speculations.
69
« on: August 26, 2007, 11:56 »
Since they make their money on commissions, why would they want our stuff sell for less? I am yet to see a car salesman convincing you to pay less than he is asking
70
« on: August 24, 2007, 23:32 »
well we have only had it organized for 4 hours now ... not too much of an increase yet 
Doh... very smart question on my part, wasn't it  Sorry, somehow didn't connect it with fresh thread on nature lightbox and perceived as some ongoing thing that I missed, lol. Doofus is as doofus does.
71
« on: August 24, 2007, 12:26 »
72
« on: August 24, 2007, 12:18 »
73
« on: August 24, 2007, 09:03 »
Do you guys see increase in views/sales from this? Or too early to tell?
74
« on: August 24, 2007, 01:17 »
I use it regularly and like it. Saves time considerably - much easier to put checkmarks to sites I want images to go to and click Upload than go to each sote individually and work through their upload process. Drop by when you have time, put categories in, you are done (well, except for IStock disambiguwhatever thingy). Oh, and since I am not a big volume uploader, free version is fine with me - 5 photos a day limit is not really limiting me.
75
« on: August 23, 2007, 20:20 »
Wouldn't he need an invisible model release? Which I am sure was provided?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
