|
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 - anonymous
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20]
476
« on: November 24, 2007, 22:21 »
it's the same old song and dance. just buck up and deal with it. 50% of the time I'll wait 2 or 3 weeks, re-submit, and it's accepted.
have fun and don't sweat it.
C
477
« on: November 03, 2007, 07:54 »
that's 16-17 images a day (factor in their rejection rate and it's 30-40 a day) for a whopping 1.5 cent bonus....
That's really nice...
478
« on: October 22, 2007, 08:12 »
Suvakov,
Is there a way to "mask" or hide your real name on the site? It currently shows my username followed by my real name.
Thx
479
« on: October 20, 2007, 12:08 »
Suvakov
This is one of those situations where it is best to let others go ahead (the second mouse gets the cheese). I'll wait until the opinions (and track record) are here on the forum and make a decision then. In the mean time, please continue to maintain your interactive feedback here on the forum...everyone here truly appreciates it.
Thx
480
« on: October 20, 2007, 10:03 »
I'm going to kick this dead horse one more time:
"The other problem with rating systems, is the "revenge" factor. If a member receives a bad rating (even though it might be a bad image), they might then take revenge on the rater and give them bad ratings on ALL of their images."
- Already taken care of :-) By revenging you not only embarrass yourself in front of the community and marginalize your votes impact, you also get warned for violations against the User Agreement and risk being banned from the site terminating your images and any funds on your account . So if any spammers/revenger's feels lucky enough try bobbing the system - go ahead... its just not worth it - better to use the time and actually go out and learn to take better images!
So to avoid "revenge" voting, you'll want to strike first. Prior to uploading your images, seek out the competition, give them #2 or #3 votes (which should dethrone them at this early stage of the site, upload yours and "voila"...you're images are at the top. You can't legitimately be "punished" for this because your opinion of those images was that they were genuinely bad AND it wasn't a "revenge" vote...where there is a will, there is a way to abuse a "popularity" system (just like kids in school have always done - successfully might I add).
We'll re-visit this thread in 6 - 8 months to find that this post is as true then as it is now.
481
« on: October 20, 2007, 08:08 »
a more visible watermark is critical...now back to the whole "voting" thing. Kill the voting but leave the ability to comment and those photographers that are using the site to "learn" get the benefit while no one is punished because of vote spammers.
Once again, if you guys didn't have an attractive forum in which to sell photos, this thread would have been dead a long time ago. It is not a programming nightmare to remove the numerical voting from the system.
Fix the watermark, remove the numerical voting, and I bet you that the majority of photographers (the good ones) will work with your website.
482
« on: October 19, 2007, 07:37 »
Suvakov,
What about the possibility of someone "opting out" of the popularity voting?
483
« on: October 18, 2007, 21:20 »
moori wrote:
I know that the MP admins have advised the users to delete pictures themselves when the pictures have recieved a sufficient number of votes and have an average vote under 3 or something like that. I, personally, wouldn't mind if they made this removal automatic when the picture has recieved, say 15 votes or so. That would clean out a lot of substandard pictures from the database in the future when it gets larger.
Completely insane. Rule #1; a photo is determined "good" or "bad" by the potential buyer, not the spammers or the home owner's association of the web site (aka fan club). Rule #2; As a seller, I truly could not give a dribble about what anyone thinks about my work, except the folks buying it. Rule #3; if you're going to remove images, base it on lack of sales (you're saying that an image with a "3" or lower rating will be booted even if it sells 50 copies). Rule #4; search engines should search by "relevance", not voting (doesn't serve the buyer, only the photog).
I like the layout of the site and the potential that it might hold, however, at current rate it will wind up just like Shutterpoint and that simply is sub-par... sorry moori...
484
« on: October 18, 2007, 07:50 »
the "country, city, and state" drop boxes don't even populate, can't make a selection, thusly cannot even get in to the site (7:45 am CST 101807)...
once you guys get that fixed, please drop the stupid "rating" system...you've got a lot of troll whores throwing 1 point ratings at good images...it's pointless and obnoxious.
485
« on: October 11, 2007, 15:30 »
In
486
« on: October 09, 2007, 17:52 »
all of the sites vary in their review times...fact of life.
123 is my 2nd highest earner (including all of the big 6). They're a good site...hang in there and be patient.
487
« on: October 08, 2007, 23:43 »
in as well
488
« on: October 04, 2007, 17:05 »
Steve-O
I'm reading the responses and trying to find a reason to join, but I see no realistic incentive to play the game. Please tell me (us) what we're missing. What makes this deal "good" because no one (self included) is getting the pitch. Historically you've been a voice of reason on the site, please enlighten us as to what we're overlooking. It has the feel of someone I don't know offering me money to take my 18 year old sister on a date (creepy).
Please chime in my brother.
AAA
489
« on: September 28, 2007, 23:03 »
I wouldn't ever agree to this contract, not even if they were biggest selling stock site.
I started uploading again today...brakes on for now...thanks for taking the time to read thru that YYO...*, just when i was warming up to them...
490
« on: September 27, 2007, 16:07 »
Crestock has been an excercise in frustration. Everything they reject sells well on big 6. CS has done well up until 2 mos. ago, slowed drastically, but shows signs of life in the last week.
491
« on: September 23, 2007, 19:00 »
No watermark = stolen images.
bulky watermark = NO stolen images
end of conversation...
492
« on: September 20, 2007, 07:07 »
after 8 mos. of dealing with their crap attitude and insane rejection rates, I pulled my work and closed the account. My worst images (that weren't selling anywhere) were the ones they accepted (which didn't sell there either). The top 6 eat up the majority of my time and it's enough of a battle dealing with them - but the sales make it worthwhile.
...if I need to deal with Nurse Ratchet, I'll watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
493
« on: September 11, 2007, 22:40 »
23 days..no reviews or sales...really sad since StockXpert was on clip to be the best month in August. Now its just turned to crickets in reviews and sales (sigh)...
...and Leaf's right...thanks SteveOh for at least being visible.
494
« on: September 07, 2007, 16:01 »
I agree with Flemish, the whole rating thing is completely lame. I've uploaded a couple of images and the little "power raters" are firing out the crap numbers...I'll upload my portfolio when / if they do away with the feature. It smacks of Shutterpoint...
495
« on: August 21, 2007, 21:06 »
Wow, do you ever sound bitter. Some may find what you wrote offensive, and you may want to watch out for that.
watch out for what? Boogie - Man Bush going to come and get him? I think he was simply making a point which is technically correct if not politically...go shoot some photos : )
496
« on: August 06, 2007, 10:00 »
at the risk of raining on the parade, LO was the last of the micros that i attempted to join. They quickly shot down ALL of my entry images, 2 of which have triple digit sales on other sites, citing that they "just weren't good enough".
Not at all impressed by their "bouncers"...
*steps off box*
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
