MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Banned from the SS forums  (Read 7940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 13, 2006, 02:11 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: July 17, 2006, 17:07 by rjmiz »


grp_photo

« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2006, 04:09 »
0
Well you are just banned from the forums should not affect you earnings :-).
There are more than enough forums outside will take while to get banned from all ;-)

« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2006, 04:18 »
0
I had wondered where you had got to on SS and have seen you in a few of the other forums (none other than iStock re as busy as SS)  You are not with iStock are you??

Welcome and as long as you keep this a miz point free zone, you shouildn't get banned her as this is independent.

Was it just the forum you got banned from?  Is it just for three months or is it for ever?  Are you still submitting photos to SS or have you pulled out in protest

« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2006, 04:24 »
0
I can see that they don't like put downs of their site on their forum, but when it seems true then.....

hopefully this group can offer a more open forum for conversation without bannings, and cencorship

« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2006, 04:25 »
0

Welcome and as long as you keep this a miz point free zone, you shouildn't get banned her as this is independent.
  :)

« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2006, 05:05 »
0
I note that iStock is very quick to lock down threads.

« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2006, 05:27 »
0
i'll say.
Shutterstock on the other hand has actually been pretty leniant with their threads, but they obviously have a breaking point.

« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2006, 15:03 »
0
Not so much a breaking point, as a breaking mizpoint...

« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2006, 15:04 »
0
(Sorry, I know, couldn't resist)

« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2006, 10:37 »
0
Miz - I think you should be banned from here too. ;)

You are responsible for the first (and hopefully only) locked thread at Microstockgroup.com:

http://microstockgroup.com/forum/index.php?topic=315.msg2156#msg2156

« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2006, 11:07 »
0
:) yeah i guess you are

congrats on giving reason to lock the first thread. :)
.. not counting the deleted thread a while back from a spamer.

« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2006, 01:07 »
0
Just spotted this thread which comments on the absence of The MIZ at the Shutterstock forum and how most forums degenerate into every subject but photography.

What happened to the MIZ?


« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2006, 03:32 »
0
I note that iStock is very quick to lock down threads.

Maybe they're just trying to encourage everyone to quit hanging around the forums so much and get back to work taking pictures and uploading files  :)

The forums can be both a great source of valuable information and opportunity to bring up important issues related to photography as well as a source of complete and utter garbage.  I suspect most people find the utter garbage sort of like looking at a bad car accident on the highway - it's hard not to look.

I've learned some really valuable information from some experienced and talented photographer on various photo forums. 

Time's up - gotta go upload.



« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2006, 05:23 »
0
Forums can be good, others a complete waste of time - just look at the longest thread thread at SS.

This forum is good as it sticks to facts and information with no games or other craaap.

« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2006, 07:48 »
0
I don't usually bother with the site forums after the amount of time I spend here if i did I wouldn't have any time to take photos.

I think every now and again if you have something important to say its worth starting a thread to get yourself noticed

I posted at DT in regard to their vectors (apparently the eps won't go on sale for a day or two). received the answers I wanted and ended up with 14 DLs almost as many as SS yesterday which is absolute fluke and brought me very close to another payout, achieved this morning ;D.

But I agree some threads at the site forums, it appears people are tying to get the circulation going in their fingers again with typing after holding the mouse for too long.

A lot of the sites need an expanded Q & A section as you see the same questions being asked again and again.

GeoPappas any comments on your numerous ideas for FT at their ideas box forum were any of them ever implemented?

Congrats to CJPhoto the first Senior member I presume I have 11 post to go to join you.

Leaf - Are there any more levels of membership to aspire to?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2006, 07:52 by fintastique »

« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2006, 07:57 »
0
Congrats to CJPhoto the first Senior member I presume I have 11 post to go to join you.

Leaf - Are there any more levels of membership to aspire to?
HOw embarrasing.  I guess I should go and do some work.

« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2006, 08:11 »
0


Leaf - Are there any more levels of membership to aspire to?

there is Hero member :)

I think i will do something a little more creative with member levels in the near future.  Those levels were just a default with the message board.  Congrats none the less :)  it is great to have some good conversation here.


« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2006, 09:42 »
0
Blimey, whatever you do please try to avoid any Star Wars or cartoon references, all right Tyler? :)

Otherwise I'll attempt to become a Sabertooth level member

« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2006, 12:55 »
0
GeoPappas any comments on your numerous ideas for FT at their ideas box forum were any of them ever implemented?

I don't think that they have implemented any of my suggestions (improving keyword process, adding ability to sort My Photos by views, adding ability to edit keywords, etc).

Even though they have an Idea Box, they don't seem to take many of the suggestions.

« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2006, 13:31 »
0
I thought as much

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how good a photo is if it has bad keywords it won't be found. Unless you get Editors choice at DT hey Freezingpics :D

Certainly the main flaw in FT's plan
zero tolerance of mistakes in keywords with the first seven keyword rule and not being able to edit them after the image is submitted. With typos, American vs British spelling and a portfolio increasing at over 30,000 images a week you have to think hard about the keywords as there is no room for error.

I usually submit to SS first as their compulsory spellchecker has highlighted typos and USA vs UK spelling on a few occasions so i can fix the IPTC data and save myself a lot of work.

A pity you can't arrange the photos by number of views at FT. I must admit on most other sites there are definite favourites whereas at FT there are very few favourites just a very wide spread of 1 or 2 DLs.

« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2006, 03:23 »
0
Newbie here.

I had the experience today of having my post edited at Shutterstock today. No warning, no email, nothing. They completely removed the 2nd paragraph of a two paragraph post.

The issue? Someone was asking if it was alright for people to resubmit images that were rejected for noise after you run them thru a noise reduction program. A bunch of people were lamenting the fact that noise gets them rejected a lot. In my post, I stated that I coudln't find a tried and true method of getting images past the noise rule at SS no mattter what I did. I stated that "it's really a crapshoot". I said that maybe different reviewers have different standards of noise and maybe that had something to do with it. It wasn't a particularly mean or hostile comment...just a theory that what one might like, another might reject. Anyway, I came back later to the same thread and my entire 2nd paragraph was gone.

Just the week befoe, someone was complaining that the newer users don't spend much time in the forums. I was making an effort to be more involved and they shut me up. I seriously doubt I'll be involved in their forums again. :(

« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2006, 04:01 »
0
Fear not we don't censor your posts here.

maybe they didn't like the word "crap"

Yes the noise issue I usually just filter the sky unless its a particularly low light photo which usually works at SS but i sometimes get rejections for artifacting. iStock have complained of photos being overfiltered.

« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2006, 00:56 »
0
In the past I have just filtered the entire photo, but perhaps I should stop with that, as it is often only the sky which needs filtering. i agree shutterstock is a bit overboard when it comes to being picky with noise.

I have, like fintastique mentioned, on numerous ocassions had photos rejected at istock for overfiltered images... not too surprising i supose, but interesting how different the two sites expectations are.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4788 Views
Last post July 17, 2006, 10:08
by leaf
0 Replies
2277 Views
Last post May 24, 2016, 12:30
by unnonimus
0 Replies
3581 Views
Last post May 24, 2019, 03:07
by yway
22 Replies
4583 Views
Last post October 02, 2020, 16:24
by duns123
65 Replies
14046 Views
Last post July 24, 2021, 09:28
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle