The time arrived to start developing my own personal stock site that will be open for other contributors also.
Since more than a year I started to develop web sites (webshops, company homepages) just to learn linux+php+mysql to create the best site I can...
I want to sell photo, vector, audio and video licenses, all these via a web site that has all the whistles and bells that a stock site needs. Yes it's a huge amount of work, but I wrote my own object-oriented php libraries and the code it's based on the Yii framework. Note that I'm putting together the pieces of the project since 2 years ago...

A brief list of targets and features:
- photo, vector audio and video licenses
- privately owned and - as the circumstances permit - upgraded servers. (To exclude the high, dedicated servers costs)
- ~1 year testing and image uploading period with zero advertising, just SEO
- in-house development, not waiting/paying programmer teams to achieve basic results/changes
- unique features & offers that agencies have partially (image fingerprints, copy space and important colors recognition and very fast search engine with detailed filters) - these may be the key features over other stock sites... I need to offer something extra...

I'm on the final stage of the project's documentation and I thought, before finishing, I will ask the people here what they always hated/liked or wanted at stock agencies. I want to have an ultra-friendly buyer/contributor portal...

I'm on the final stage of the project's documentation and I thought, before finishing, I will ask the people here what they always hated/liked or wanted at stock agencies. I want to have an ultra-friendly buyer/contributor portal...

That should have been your first step.

Features are nice, but it really comes down to price, royalty rate and licensing agreement. If those are good, then it's something I'd consider.

This thread is about your opinion... What do you expect from a stock site???
For the licensing agreement I would like to introduce something extra and automated. Not the classic "you will earn 40% and I'll change if I want". For example, at SS, those who deserved could keep the referral earnings, if the system would be based on the actual income based on contributor sales... Like at MLM systems... - example: for lifetime earn the x% of the referred member's income, multiplied by your y income...

Features are nice, but it really comes down to price, royalty rate and licensing agreement. If those are good, then it's something I'd consider.

really? versus ease of use and general niceness of the site? I'd say plenty of designers would prefer a site that's easy to use, not too chaotic, reliable etc. Price shouldn't be the first concern for a quality site.  If you can't build an awesome site, then yes, you then have to rely on a price war for attention. (Personally I've always preferred iS to all the others, there's something about it that makes it nice to use. It's just a shame they are giant PITAes)

as a contributor I'd like: easy uploading, not requiring categories (or make them optional). If you must have categories then make sure they are broad.

a decent stats page that has all info in one graph, so I can see all my details without having to click between pages.

should I even ask how you're going to review images? (need staff ? )

Really?  I find that site soooo slow that I can check out several other sites while the page is opening there.  I often wonder how buyers put up with the slowness of the site.
[/quote]

maybe it's the colour scheme that calms me down?

Quote from: cthoman on February 26, 2013, 19:30

Features are nice, but it really comes down to price, royalty rate and licensing agreement. If those are good, then it's something I'd consider.

really? versus ease of use and general niceness of the site? I'd say plenty of designers would prefer a site that's easy to use, not too chaotic, reliable etc. Price shouldn't be the first concern for a quality site.  If you can't build an awesome site, then yes, you then have to rely on a price war for attention. (Personally I've always preferred iS to all the others, there's something about it that makes it nice to use. It's just a shame they are giant PITAes)

as a contributor I'd like: easy uploading, not requiring categories (or make them optional). If you must have categories then make sure they are broad.

a decent stats page that has all info in one graph, so I can see all my details without having to click between pages.

should I even ask how you're going to review images? (need staff ? )

I meant as a contributor. The first thing I always look at is what I am going to get paid. If that doesn't look good, I don't bother looking at everything else.

as a contributor I'd like: easy uploading, not requiring categories (or make them optional). If you must have categories then make sure they are broad.

a decent stats page that has all info in one graph, so I can see all my details without having to click between pages.

should I even ask how you're going to review images? (need staff ? )

I want to include SS-style categories but with auto-guess from title, description and keywords. Thus, 90% of the times the guessed category will be correct.
Regarding the stats - of course, highly detailed stats are a must. Witch caching techniques, there will be no captcha or other sh*t when checking the stats.

Review - I must hire reviewers at some point, no question about.
Inconsistent reviews and stupid keyword rejection are killing me - and I know, many of us hate these. I want to introduce some extras from the start:
- multi-level reviews: images, metadata(keywords), additional formats may be approved separately. This way your image may pass but the keywords not. After the keywords are corrected, the image may go (back) online.
- re-upload system for resubmission and upgraded (higher resolution, levels-corrected) versions. Replacement versions replace the original ONLY if accepted.
- less rejections due to internal "quality_factor" and "commercial_factor" parameters. The "commercial_factor" is an auto-adjusting value based on the downloads of the image. These params will help placing the better images in the front of the worse but still receiving exposure when sorted otherwise than 'best match'

Here are some popular image titles from several different sites. How would these get categorized?

Different
Cheers
Times Gone By
On His Way
Chalkboard (business terms on front, will it be in the objects or business category)
Green Banners
Time and Money

Unfortunately not all contributors give their images titles that describe the subject. On some sites this is less important. Will you require a descriptive title, change it when submitted or look at each one to put them where they belong?

I like enough the indexing mode of Fotolia. Their categories are well structured and complete.
��

eh? their categories are the absolute WORST. I guess I should shoot only stuff that fits their categories, if I were to be shooting for FT as a top tier.

categories should be optional.

apart from very generic: christmas, easter, valentine, wedding, finance, health.... even then, i've seen many, many abusers of those categories (sandals on the beach = christmas?? sure, i'm an aussie but even so... just ridiculous)

No categories is good.
If you want categories, a simple field with autocompletion could be an idea

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.

Quote from: goober on February 28, 2013, 19:51

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.