pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Is it a good idea or bad?

Good Idea
85 (46.7%)
Bad Idea
97 (53.3%)

Total Members Voted: 158

Author Topic: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?)  (Read 40141 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2013, 10:59 »
+4
I don't use my real name on here (and I would not want to), yet I do not think I have ever behaved unprofessional in this forum. I just do not want to be forced to use my real name in a forum.

BTW - how would you know that John Miller's name is really John Miller, when he signs up?


« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2013, 11:04 »
+4
If this portfolio linking is going to happen, I will close this account and open a new one

Hmmm __ let me guess. 'Ponke v3' by any chance?

« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2013, 11:07 »
+4
Cathy, I announced who I am at the same time that I closed my account at Fotolia a couple of years back. You can also (I think) go direct to my portfolio on several agencies from my profile page, so there is no great secret about my identity.
The fact that I'm known makes no difference to the underlying principle - that people will feel obliged to curb their tongues if they think the agencies can check up on them. That will mean that issues that used to be discussed may simply be ignored, expecially after what happened to Sean.
I have not the slightest doubt that iStock dumped Sean because of his interaction with other artists, by providing  information, analysis and computer scripts. If he had kept his thoughts to himself then he would still be on iS.
The references to AndresR and Yuri's participation using public names just raised the question of what contributions they actually make. Yuri talks about himself and his business plans but never about anything controversial (he didn't even offer an opinion about the Google Drive affair, remember? Self-censorship, methinks), I don't recall what Andres talks about, again, I don't think he comments on controversies. There don't seem to be a lot of other top contributors posting here - or, at least, not under their own names. 
I can think of a pile of things that have come up that might not have been mentioned if people were easily identified - Fotolia's imaginative pricing of credits differently for buyers and sellers, its practice of using artificial exchange rates to  put sellers into the lowest-payment groups, Google Drive, sneaky commission cuts by a variety of agencies, maybe even the actual commission percentages paid out by agencies that (falsely) claim they are offering a really good deal ....
Over recent years, some of our agents have repeatedly tried to hide certain facts behind a smokescreen (who knows how many images Getty has put on Google Drive now? They've managed to hush it up with a take-down notice). It stands to reason that when agencies go out of their way to hide information from contributors, they are not going to be pleased with people who spell that information out.
It may be "unprofessional" to tell the truth about companies that you have a business relationship with, but in a crowdsourced industry it is invaluable to have people keeping track of the shenanigans and letting the punters know what is happening.

Great points BaldricksTrousers, I also think the sites will benefit from these changes, especially public companies who now find that they need to manage public perception. After all they do not want analyst to find out what is actually going on at the agencies. With hundreds of millions on the line I would think they would be happy to see these changes come about and to be sure they would fully support them.

I will be out if this change takes place, why participate in censored conversations without being about to speak the truth for fear of being financially crippled.

Poncke v2

« Reply #78 on: May 29, 2013, 11:11 »
+1
If this portfolio linking is going to happen, I will close this account and open a new one

Hmmm __ let me guess. 'Ponke v3' by any chance?
No  :), the name I go by on all agency forums. If there is a mandatory portfolio link than I just as well can change to my artist name. But the more I think about it, the more Im thinking about dropping out when I have to link a portfolio here. This is a place where we can vent and go ape about an agency when another stupid decision is made. We can do that because there is no direct link. When there is any link, a real name, or whatever that can identify me to the agency lurkers, all real thoughts about an agency will disappear and it will be nothing but brown nosing.

m@m

« Reply #79 on: May 29, 2013, 11:16 »
+8
I don't visit this forum much anymore, but if these new changes come into effect, I won't be visiting at all...I'm out!...I've got nothing to hide, but for some of the same reasons expressed by other members I would not like my real name or link to my portfolio to be shown here...
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 11:19 by m@m »

« Reply #80 on: May 29, 2013, 11:17 »
+11
There are a number of legitimate reasons to remain anonymous, to prevent copying, to keep sites from retaliation - and it does happen - at least from Fotolia, if for some reason (like you are a macro shooter) you want to keep your micro participation on the down low, etc. However it would be nice to keep the worst of the trolls from constantly signing up with new or multiple accounts and just stirring the pot.

I don't know an easy way to allow people to stay anonymous without allowing at least some of the latter. Certainly there are some long term anonymous posters that have constructive and valuable contributions to MSG and it would be a shame to lose them. Even if I don't know who they really are, I have an idea about their MSG persona.

Perhaps there could be a way to grandfather accounts in. I think if everyone was forced to out themselves the forum would lose some of it's character and would be a little more whitewashed as far as legitimate criticism of the sites went. It would also probably be a little more civil and lose a few trolls, but I am not sure it is worth it.

Perhaps having a section that you can't comment (or read?) without confirming your identity would be a way around this.

It would be nice to have a more civil and constructive troll-free forum but I am not sure that forcing people to identify themselves is the best way to do it.

« Reply #81 on: May 29, 2013, 11:27 »
+13
I think some of us are being a bit naive about revealing our identities.

I once posted something negative on the DT forum - not rude, just critical.  "Achilles" responded with an angry threat left as a comment on one of my photos (!) which I can't delete, so buyers see it too. 

SS CEO Jon Oringer - who some posters here would like to canonize - once posted a "make my day" rant on the SS forum, threatening to close the accounts of those criticizing his tax policies.

Open identity here is a complete non-starter for me.  Besides possible reprisals, I actually enjoy the fringe opinions, conspiracy theories, and over-the-top disputes.   Take that all away, and I might as well read those sanitized, lifeless in-house forums at the agency sites. 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 11:40 by stockastic »

cuppacoffee

« Reply #82 on: May 29, 2013, 11:36 »
+1
I know that there are some admins here who are also contributors to the same and/or other sites (I don't think there is a requirement on all sites to be exclusive if you are an admin but I might be wrong). I don't think they would want their identities known if for no other reason than to keep from being targeted for anything and everything that wasn't liked about the agency they work at/for. This could be a reviewer, an accountant, a programmer, a keymaster, etc. as there are all levels of "admins" at the sites.

« Reply #83 on: May 29, 2013, 11:45 »
+16
$5 a month to stay anonymous? Seriously?

This forum is heading into the wrong direction.

Leaf, it's your site, do whatever you want. I'm sure your referrals alone from this site pay for hosting costs and time.

Premium member access is already making this place look like a two class system. Most top shooters and frequent posters know each other (often through PMs) already.
What's there to hide?

Either way, I'm disappointed.

If it all boils down to controlling trolls it's sad to resort to these measures. Didn't know it was such a big problem.

jbarber873

« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2013, 11:55 »
+4
   I have never hidden my identity, as my username attests. Partly because micro stock is not my only income source, but mostly because I grew up in a world where you were allowed to have an opinion without being punished. As others have noted, some agencies and the people involved in them, deeply resent negative opinions, most notably FT. Sadly, they earned those negative posts and deserve them fully. If fear of reprisals gets in the way of telling the truth, then that will have a profound impact on the value of discussion here. I have the luxury of not caring what these companies do, but not everyone is immune to the long reach of the agency "woo yay" police.
   Don't be so worried about being "professional". You should have the courage to stick to something that has worked out pretty well so far. There are so few places in the world that allow honest discussion. We can deal with trolls, and in fact they add interest to the mix.

Great post jbarber873 ... whoever you are. Can't believe that Mr & Mrs Barber873 named their offspring simply 'j' all those years ago

The worst part was the first day of school...

rubyroo

« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2013, 11:56 »
+5
Actually I'm going to take back the inch I gave earlier on this.  As Mellimage said, it does feel as though I'd be forced against my will to do something - and I'd never accept that in real life, so I'm not going to accept it just to be able to participate here.  I'd probably have itchy fingers for a while if I couldn't post, but I'd get over it.

« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2013, 11:59 »
0
Actually I'm going to take back the inch I gave earlier on this.  As Mellimage said, it does feel as though I'd be forced against my will to do something - and I'd never accept that in real life, so I'm not going to accept it just to be able to participate here.  I'd probably have itchy fingers for a while if I couldn't post, but I'd get over it.

Yes, because we are never forced to do anything in microstock.  ;)

« Reply #87 on: May 29, 2013, 12:18 »
-10
I think you should go for complete openness. That means that people can only join with their full names and adresses.

You would lose something, but you would be a much more valid partner in the environment.
All this anonymity or anonymyty is simply dishonost and not to be taken seriously.

I cannot believe I got 11 (and counting) minuses for saying this. are people blind and deaf?

Can you not see it is two different things?

hiding anonymous makes a forom of hear say and free accusations.
An open forum would make a place where people could stand ground.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 14:37 by JPSDK »

tab62

« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2013, 12:21 »
+2
a very close race on the decision (almost 50/50). I will say that I had a MS company contact me after I made a negative post- things worked out okay but still a little concern on leaving my signature.  Knowing that the MS companies do view this board is a good things since they do keep us up to date on things.

Just have to water down my comments in the future if the decision is made to show the commenter...

PS
I have gotten a lot of help from almost all of you and cannot thank you enough.

Tom

« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2013, 12:36 »
+4
Just as an add on to my earlier post: I have no problem with YOU as site and forum owner knowing my real name (it's not like you don't know already through other means) - you provide a service I use fine. But all others that participate here on this forum, do they really need to know my real first name or not (some do and some don't, but generally I have control over who does and who doesn't).
And in the end it boils down to the question how would you be able to truly verify it is the real name - if you aren't able to verify this - what does this policy prevent trolls from signing up with "real sounding" names and still be trolls? And how does it prevent someone from using multiple accounts?

Sure, adding a cost factor would cut that problem down - in that case however (after seeing my last business balance sheet) I'd be giving up my posting rights. Sadly, but would.

I do understand where your thoughts are coming from, i sometimes wish for a bit more professional and constructive discussion, but not sure these are the ways to go by.

« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2013, 12:49 »
+7
...All this anonymity or anonymyty is simply dishonost and not to be taken seriously.
I'm sorry to have been dishonest and not serious with others posting on this forum. But with members feeling this way, it really appears that anonymous members never have been considered an asset to this community.

Shocking.

« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2013, 12:49 »
+10
Hi All,

 If tact is used there is a way to voice your concerns that are clear to all, appropriate in manor, and not insulting to any agency you are truly concerned with an issue over. I do not know an agency I cannot contact and voice my concerns over any issue, it is all in the wording and the use of respect and courtesy. I think it would help keep subjects on track and keep the lurkers at bay but I don't think you will get it to float here. Okay, I am ready for the minus hearts :)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and efforts,
Jonathan

« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2013, 12:51 »
-4
All for it - as I said before, the only reasons for no doing so are fear or dishonesty.  Really, I cant see sites pursuing anyone for stating a legitimate point of view and it definitely stem some of the abusive post from folks hiding in the grass,

@Ponke - everyone knows who you are anyway, portfolio links and all so nothing gained.

« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2013, 12:56 »
0
I think real identity could bring less negativity. And quoting Larry: "Being negative is not how we make progress."

Even if we don't like some steps from agencies, we don't have to go throwing crap around.

If agency is doing steps against anyone based posts on public forum, are they worth our time ?

It could bring some more light into the dark sides of forum :)

So why not I'm in ;)

ps. but take my post with a pinch of salt, as i'm so small in MS business, that I shouldn't even post here haha :D

lisafx

« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2013, 13:01 »
+21
My first reaction is "no".  My second reaction is "Oh He11 no!". 

I use my name by choice, and out of laziness.  I've tried being anonymous a few times, although I have never been anonymous from Tyler.  Mostly though, I am just me, because it's such a PITA to have to shift back and forth between accounts. 

Also, because I have a certain sales level, I didn't (until Sean-mageddon) worry that I would be penalized by the sites because of my opinions.  In fact, I figured my opinions would carry more weight with any agencies who might be reading.  I assumed my sales level insulated me a bit.  Well of course now we all know that no amount of sales completely insulates anyone.

I hope it's obvious from this thread that we will lose quite a few valuable contributors if anonymity is forbidden.  It is also very obvious that it will sanitize the conversation to the point of rendering the site both boring and useless.  Yes, it might get rid of the occasional troll, but it seems to me to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

Surely most of us have the intellect to spot a troll and ignore him or her without draconian measures punishing every other anonymous poster.  By the same token, most of us should be able to identify a valuable or intelligent post by its content, without having to check a portfolio to see if the person is "worthy" of being listened to.  We aren't children and should not need our precious and delicate sensibilities protected to such a degree.

JMO.



« Last Edit: May 29, 2013, 13:04 by lisafx »

« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2013, 13:03 »
+9
All for it - as I said before, the only reasons for no doing so are fear or dishonesty.  Really, I cant see sites pursuing anyone for stating a legitimate point of view and it definitely stem some of the abusive post from folks hiding in the grass,

@Ponke - everyone knows who you are anyway, portfolio links and all so nothing gained.

And why would fear not be a legitimate reason? That fear may not even have something to do with potential retaliation from an agency.

Poncke v2

« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2013, 13:08 »
+2
All for it - as I said before, the only reasons for no doing so are fear or dishonesty.  Really, I cant see sites pursuing anyone for stating a legitimate point of view and it definitely stem some of the abusive post from folks hiding in the grass,

@Ponke - everyone knows who you are anyway, portfolio links and all so nothing gained.
  Same about a lot of others, but the outside world doesnt. As said before I can close my account and open another one with a different name and change my tune.

I always speak my mind, and I stand by what I say. But for all known reasons I do not wish to directly link my identity.

Paying to stay anonymous is another thing that I do not wish to pursue.


« Reply #97 on: May 29, 2013, 13:08 »
+12
While I understand the concept of trolling I cannot see the correlation between anonymity and trolling or anonymity and dishonesty.

I do my best to be courteous and respectful as if everyone of you stood in front of me.

Just because some forum members here decided to publish their identity doesn't mean that they automatically all contribute in a respectful and beneficial manner either...

lisafx

« Reply #98 on: May 29, 2013, 13:09 »
+4
All for it - as I said before, the only reasons for no doing so are fear or dishonesty.  Really, I cant see sites pursuing anyone for stating a legitimate point of view and it definitely stem some of the abusive post from folks hiding in the grass,

@Ponke - everyone knows who you are anyway, portfolio links and all so nothing gained.

And why would fear not be a legitimate reason? That fear may not even have something to do with potential retaliation from an agency.

Exactly.  And that "fear" increases in proportion to the amount of income you stand to lose if an agency gives you the boot. 

If agency is doing steps against anyone based posts on public forum, are they worth our time ?

Surely that would depend on your income from said site?  If you were making, say, $2,000 - $4,000 a month from a particular site, would you be reluctant to post something negative and have your account closed in retaliation?

« Reply #99 on: May 29, 2013, 13:09 »
+4
I think you should go for complete openness. That means that people can only join with their full names and adresses.

full name and address aren't enough 8)

I believe we need also bank account number, paypal address, blood type, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity and of course if the person is vegetarian or loves meat ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2762 Views
Last post September 20, 2011, 14:30
by stockmarketer
187 Replies
36998 Views
Last post October 21, 2011, 18:42
by Mantis
File Confirmed!

Started by CD123 Adobe Stock

7 Replies
3474 Views
Last post January 23, 2013, 17:27
by Pauws99
Deposit Photo's - 3% Royalty Confirmed

Started by stock-will-eat-itself « 1 2 3 4  All » DepositPhotos

85 Replies
33904 Views
Last post December 08, 2014, 15:47
by stock-will-eat-itself
50 Replies
16032 Views
Last post June 23, 2015, 19:49
by 60D

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors