pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: For a new stock site: features you wanted/like/dislike at agencies  (Read 9447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2013, 20:09 »
0
I'd like no inspectors once you prove reliable. No refunds. 80% payout to artists. No public record of sales information to stop the copycats.

why not 81%? I believe 50% is a fair deal, don't forget they are the ones getting us buyers....

Look, make it 82% and you've got a deal.

whatever 82%, 81%, 80% or even 30% but with nice pricing and of course more buyers than just the owner ;D


« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2013, 22:41 »
0
categories are useless, who goes there anyway? a buyer, a designer, a contributor when looking/licensing a picture they know what they are going after so they type a few keywords, why going over categories and then over 5 million files ::)

Categories are quite useful for search as well (in the sense of a controlled vocabulary).  Keywords on an image can be mapped into categories which in turn can be mapped back into search terms applied to that image - i.e. searches on synonyms, common misspellings, international aliases, etc. can better pull up an image that has been categorized.  Categories are more easily translated into other languages and category keywords can be updated and globally applied to categorized images in the search index.

With that being said, it is a time-consuming process to categorize images and disambiguate keywords, thus probably a bit too much to ask of a contributor to deal with directly.  However, internally managed categories can reduce the work burden on the contributor by allowing them to worry less about cramming every possible keyword variant into their metadata.

« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2013, 12:19 »
0
categories are useless, who goes there anyway? a buyer, a designer, a contributor when looking/licensing a picture they know what they are going after so they type a few keywords, why going over categories and then over 5 million files ::)

Categories are quite useful for search as well (in the sense of a controlled vocabulary).  Keywords on an image can be mapped into categories which in turn can be mapped back into search terms applied to that image - i.e. searches on synonyms, common misspellings, international aliases, etc. can better pull up an image that has been categorized.  Categories are more easily translated into other languages and category keywords can be updated and globally applied to categorized images in the search index.

With that being said, it is a time-consuming process to categorize images and disambiguate keywords, thus probably a bit too much to ask of a contributor to deal with directly.  However, internally managed categories can reduce the work burden on the contributor by allowing them to worry less about cramming every possible keyword variant into their metadata.
Some very good points about categories, I had not thought about some of them.

It would seem to me that the value of categories depends somewhat on how good the list of categories are. On some sites I struggle to find a category into which I can put my image, and end up miscategorizing it, which has the effect of keyword spamming. FT probably has the worst list of categories.

« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2013, 12:27 »
+1
Really?  In my opinion BS has the worst list of categories.  Or should I say the most incomplete list of categories.  I can't properly categorize 90% of what I submit there.  (Correction.... what I used to submit there.  Have held off until I decide if I'm staying).

« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2013, 13:09 »
0
Really?  In my opinion BS has the worst list of categories.  Or should I say the most incomplete list of categories.  I can't properly categorize 90% of what I submit there.  (Correction.... what I used to submit there.  Have held off until I decide if I'm staying).
You're probably right. My images have been submitted automatically to BigStock via the Bridge for so long that I don't remember what their categories are like. I do recall that I dreaded submitting there.

« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2013, 13:42 »
+1
Really?  In my opinion BS has the worst list of categories.  Or should I say the most incomplete list of categories.  I can't properly categorize 90% of what I submit there.  (Correction.... what I used to submit there.  Have held off until I decide if I'm staying).
You're probably right. My images have been submitted automatically to BigStock via the Bridge for so long that I don't remember what their categories are like. I do recall that I dreaded submitting there.
I can't remember what the BS catagories are like either but the Fotolia ones are a PITA!!

« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2013, 13:50 »
+1
One thing that bugs me about little sites...  I like to pick the amount I cash out rather than requesting a payout and them taking my account to zero.  Some of the sites - like Veer for example - can take so long to reach that $100.  If I have $140 at the end of the month I would like the option to only take my minimum required $100 in case I want to cash out again next month.  Does that make sense?

« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2013, 20:24 »
0
categories are useless, who goes there anyway? a buyer, a designer, a contributor when looking/licensing a picture they know what they are going after so they type a few keywords, why going over categories and then over 5 million files ::)

Categories are quite useful for search as well (in the sense of a controlled vocabulary).  Keywords on an image can be mapped into categories which in turn can be mapped back into search terms applied to that image - i.e. searches on synonyms, common misspellings, international aliases, etc. can better pull up an image that has been categorized.  Categories are more easily translated into other languages and category keywords can be updated and globally applied to categorized images in the search index.

With that being said, it is a time-consuming process to categorize images and disambiguate keywords, thus probably a bit too much to ask of a contributor to deal with directly.  However, internally managed categories can reduce the work burden on the contributor by allowing them to worry less about cramming every possible keyword variant into their metadata.
For sure I agree with the categories. But I hardly believe, there can be written a fine-tuned algorithm that save the contributors from picking a category for every single image. To deal with category guessing failures I'm thinking about a sophisticated and easy batch editing tool...
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 20:44 by icefront »

« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2013, 20:30 »
0
If I have $140 at the end of the month I would like the option to only take my minimum required $100 in case I want to cash out again next month.  Does that make sense?
These payouts-at-end-of-the-month features are created for lazy managers. Also they keep the money for a long time. When the buyer purchases a subscription or credits, the money is transferred to the agency. Then, time passes, the licenses are purchased and the money slowly migrates to the contributors. I never understood why BigStock has the grace periods for payouts (=how this prevents fraud)...
I agree with the lower than $100 payout and also with the requested payout amount.

« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2013, 20:40 »
0
I'd like no inspectors once you prove reliable. No refunds. 80% payout to artists. No public record of sales information to stop the copycats.
I like very much the idea of no inspectors when somebody proves to provide high quality... I was thinking a lot, why agencies doesn't implement this time/money saving feature... Anyway, latest reviews can damage a contributor's acceptance ratio, causing a fallback to inspections. But I know, a lot of contributors do a very good retouching and corrections, also include highly relevant keyword, without (intentional) spamming.

While the public records help the buyers (somehow), it is true, it really inspires the copycats. Good point IMHO, I'm wondering, what can be the real drawback to hide the stats???

80% payout would be nice, but I think, in this case, the contributors may need to spend some money BACK for google adwords and magazine advertising. At least in the first several years... But as the picture shows, after the good times arrive, the shareholders appear...
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 20:43 by icefront »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6733 Views
Last post April 27, 2008, 19:39
by madelaide
8 Replies
2695 Views
Last post February 01, 2012, 18:37
by Micro1
11 Replies
7918 Views
Last post July 30, 2017, 22:22
by YadaYadaYada
0 Replies
1603 Views
Last post August 11, 2017, 10:33
by rmkrueger
33 Replies
11332 Views
Last post October 23, 2017, 12:51
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle