MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Site Related => Topic started by: leaf on May 29, 2013, 01:15
-
I know we've hashed this out a few times, but feelings can change and I have a few suggestions to make a confirmed identities system work better.
What do you think of..
Everyone on the forum has to add a portfolio link and their real name to their profile (at least first name.. or possibly first name and last initial.. for example). Their name will be displayed under their user name but will NOT show publicly .. only to logged in users. The user name is all that will show publicly.
The portfolio link would not be shown publicly (to help those who feel they have a niche they don't want copied) only to other logged in users of MSG.
Lastly.. for those who really feel for some reason that they need to hide their real name and port they can purchase that 'upgrade'. What I'm thinking initially is $5.00/month .. I don't need the extra income from the forum but it would create a barrier for the trolls who just want to hide and for those who really feel it is important but still want to be part of the discussion it shouldn't be a big deal. I'll donate half that amount to charity and keep the rest for the pain of getting this all working and keeping it in order. The people who want to hide their identity will still have to prove their identity to me through an istock / Dreamstime / stocksy etc.. site mail.
Why do this?
Well, frankly, I've been visiting another forum (about a different topic) that simply requires you to have your real name as your user name.. and the conversation there has been refreshingly positive and constructive. It is a quite small forum so I'm guessing that has a lot to do with it and I don't have the illusion that it will remove all negative discussion here but I certainly think it will help. Hidden identities are starting to feel a bit 'last decade' internet culture, especially for a website that is trying to be a 'professional' meeting place.
As a trial .. I thought we could see how it goes for a month. What do you think? Dumb idea? Good idea? I'm open to hearing people's thoughts.
-
See ya later then. I'm out.
-
Might be some backlash from it but I know I don't mind. Test it out.
*edit*
Of course it might be a bit redundant to those that have their name already there like mine and have it again underneath.
-
I already discuss in all forums with my real name (or at least link to my blog or website where it can be easily found out), so go ahead, it would not change anything for me, except that I know then whom I talk to.
-
I'd prefer real identities, but I'm sympathetic to those contributors who wish to remain anonymous given the actions of some agencies. Perhaps a smaller more token fee would be better.
-
great idea
-
I have absolutely no problem with my real name (Boris Jaroscak) being visible anywhere. ;)
But I - more or less - understand point of view of some people who want to discuss anonymously. Maybe they are being afraid of enviousness from some people, or competition, or maybe that some "bad" stock agencies will read their posts and harm them in some way for their opinions expressed here, etc.
Btw. when talking about various monthly fees. I would be actually willing to pay monthly fee if that fee will make my user signature visible to anyone/public (now only logged in users can see signatures) which would be good for SEO of my personal portfolio websites(s) presented here.
Don’t you consider also such update to paid membership leaf?
-
Great idea and about time.
-
The real name would be hidden to protect the search results for people who don't want to mix up their mircostock business with their regular photography business (or whatever else the case may be)
I have some understanding for the people who want to hide their identities from the agencies as well, however, when you consider it, many of the people who have the most to lose (the full time photographers) are posting with their real names or at least a known identity. Andres, Yuri, Lisa, Sean, photorob, etc. etc. If it was a big issue those people wouldn't post with their real names. Agencies don't have, and have never had a problem with people expressing negativity towards an idea - it's the way it is delivered that they (and I for that matter) have a problem with. If it is delivered in a professional, respectful manner, no one should take offense, and if they do, one could ask themselves if they really want to work with such a company in the first place.
But.. if it's still a problem, like I states in the first post - people could still choose to hide their identities. They'd just have to prove it was really important to them by buying an upgrade.
@jareso, Yeah I should make the signature show for premium members.
-
Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.
-
Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.
exactly
-
Well I'm out too, bye
-
Well I'm out too, bye
wow, that was quick. I was just throwing the idea out there to hear thoughts and opinions and you deleted your account...
I'm very interested in trying this out and from the poll it looks like there are others as well but I'm going to listen to the feedback people have first.
-
We know some stock sites have booted people for saying things they don't like - the name "Locke" comes to mind these days and iStock has been more tolerant than one or two other agencies.
I guess allowing agencies to check up on who is saying what about them is a good way to ensure that we only get "Woo-Yay" threads here from now on. Apart, of course, from cases where people are not members of a particular agency and will still be free to criticise it. So if this thread was sparked by the exchanges about Stocksy, then using real names isn't likely to change anything.
-
We know some stock sites have booted people for saying things they don't like - the name "Locke" comes to mind these days and iStock has been more tolerant than one or two other agencies.
I guess allowing agencies to check up on who is saying what about them is a good way to ensure that we only get "Woo-Yay" threads here from now on. Apart, of course, from cases where people are not members of a particular agency and will still be free to criticise it. So if this thread was sparked by the exchanges about Stocksy, then using real names isn't likely to change anything.
I'm not sure I agree. Sean wasn't booted for simply disagreeing with iStock's google deal. There were many public people more vocal about it than him. Also, having identities shown haven't stopped people from disagreeing with what sites are doing. I deleted lots of images from my port in protest as well as did many other public people. The difference between an agency forum and this one that on this forum, posts aren't deleted for being critical of an agency.
This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional.
-
Personally I would prefer not to mix my real name (that represent me in my real work too) with my (parallel) activity on microstocks and related forums.
It is just a question of privacy (respect of it).
I don't think that a forum should be like Facebook where you have to register with your real datas.
Here we have already the "I like" button, and I think that it is enough like this… ;)
-
Well I'm out too, bye
Me too
-
Good idea to test this leaf. I can see why you see the need to do something.
-
removed
-
I have some understanding for the people who want to hide their identities from the agencies as well, however, when you consider it, many of the people who have the most to loose (the full time photographers) are posting with their real names or at least a known identity. Andres, Yuri, Lisa, Sean, photorob, etc. etc. If it was a big issue those people wouldn't post with their real names. Agencies don't have, and have never had a problem with people expressing negativity towards an idea - it's the way it is delivered that they (and I for that matter) have a problem with. If it is delivered in a professional, respectful manner, no one should take offense, and if they do, one could ask themselves if they really want to work with such a company in the first place.
I really can't believe you wrote that or even started this thread. In case you've been on another planet for the last few months you should be aware that some bloke called Sean recently lost an income of about $400K per year through posting 'negative but professional' posts on here and elsewhere. Maybe it's just me but I'd call that a pretty "big issue". Duh.
BTW __ it's 'lose' not 'loose'.
-
I have some understanding for the people who want to hide their identities from the agencies as well, however, when you consider it, many of the people who have the most to loose (the full time photographers) are posting with their real names or at least a known identity. Andres, Yuri, Lisa, Sean, photorob, etc. etc. If it was a big issue those people wouldn't post with their real names. Agencies don't have, and have never had a problem with people expressing negativity towards an idea - it's the way it is delivered that they (and I for that matter) have a problem with. If it is delivered in a professional, respectful manner, no one should take offense, and if they do, one could ask themselves if they really want to work with such a company in the first place.
I really can't believe you wrote that or even started this thread. In case you've been on another planet for the last few months you should be aware that some bloke called Sean recently lost an income of about $400K per year through posting 'negative but professional' posts on here and elsewhere. Maybe it's just me but I'd call that a pretty "big issue". Duh.
BTW __ it's 'lose' not 'loose'.
But that hasn't stopped Sean from posting with his real name. I also added a bold highlight to a part you may have missed.
re:spelling. It's never been my strong point.
-
I'm not sure I agree. Sean wasn't booted for simply disagreeing with iStock's google deal.
How do you know why Sean was booted? Were you the Getty manager who made the decision or, alternatively, have you had his reasons in writing explaining it to you? Or are you just speculating? I don't think even Sean truly understands what happened and why. I certainly don't.
-
But that hasn't stopped Sean from posting with his real name.
It's a bit late now isn't it?
I didn't miss your emboldened bit either. I just thought it irrelevant. Given the chance to turn the clock back I suspect that someone would have chosen to keep their head down, continue working with said agency and keep picking up the money.
-
Well, with such a system in place I would probably refrain from posting in the future.
-
I'm not sure I agree. Sean wasn't booted for simply disagreeing with iStock's google deal.
How do you know why Sean was booted? Were you the Getty manager who made the decision or, alternatively, have you had his reasons in writing explaining it to you? Or are you just speculating? I don't think even Sean truly understands what happened and why. I certainly don't.
I have no idea why he was booted other than what he posted on his blog and on here. But from what he wrote, I felt the reasons were more than simply a forum post.
Did they say why?
Well, it took a while for me to get reasons, as mostly I was told that discussion would not be “productive”. However, I was told they did not like how I handled the Google Drive situation, on and off-site.
Also, they did not appreciate the deactivation addition to my Greasemonkey script. The most odd part of this was that I was accused of leading the February 2nd deactivation day. Odd (and a complete lie), because I didn’t start it, never said I was going to participate it, and never actively encouraged anyone to participate in it, although I did encourage everyone to study the available facts and make a decision on what they felt was appropriate action. In fact, I sent several emails the week prior to iStockphoto/Getty managers to initiate a phone conversation, thinking I could provide suggestions on how to defuse the situation.
They also knew (somehow!) that I had joined this new stock site, even though it was closed to all but a relatively small group, and declared that this was against the “spirit of the exclusivity agreement”. I’m not sure what the issue was there, as I am not an indentured servant, and if I want to investigate things, that should not be threatening to them. It seems they either see this new venture as a danger to them, or are just vindictive towards anyone involved with it, for some reason. Looking at this now, I think they mistakenly assumed, or were told, that I was a bigger part of the picture there than I actually was.
Also, when I said that this seemed like something personal, I was told it was just “business”. Since it affects my family, obviously I find it a bit more personal than they do; iStockphoto and Getty provide nearly all of my income.
So, it appeared they were never interested in a discourse at all. It was just a way to cut me off. At least I got a phone call.
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/ (http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/)
-
The more you try to 'sanitise' this forum, the less useful and relevant it will become.
If this place becomes yet another guarded corporate mouthpiece ... then an alternative forum will simply spring up to take it's place.
-
Well I'm protective of my privacy on the Internet as a whole, for perfectly rational and logical reasons and I would never sign up to any forum or other form of social media that insists that I have no right to my own privacy. I'm not sure what sort of assurance it is that 'only members' would know people's real names, since anyone could become a member and I'd have no idea as to the kind of person they were in reality or what they might do with that information.
If you make it compulsory, then I'll be out too.
-
True! and well spoken! there are many examples of this. Brilliant forums turning into almost religious cleaning-up and left are the corporate mouthpieces. :)
-
Well I'm protective of my privacy on the Internet as a whole, for perfectly rational and logical reasons and I would never sign up to any forum or other form of social media that insists that I have no right to my own privacy. I'm not sure what sort of assurance it is that 'only members' would know people's real names, since anyone could become a member and I'd have no idea as to the kind of person they were in reality or what they might do with that information.
If you make it compulsory, then I'll be out too.
Thanks for the thoughts. The reason I thought to hide names publicly was to make it so google search wouldn't pick them up.
-
Could you really guarantee that there's no glitch that would suddenly, accidentally, reveal people's names? That's happened to me on an agency before. Can't remember which one it was now, but it was very shocking at the time.
I hope you decide against this idea, and I hope Microbius comes back!
-
This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional.
What other forum may I ask?
-
This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional.
What other forum may I ask?
http://forum.freeflysystems.com/index.php (http://forum.freeflysystems.com/index.php)
-
You realise, of course, that this would allow the agencies to impose censorship on your site. All they would have to do would be to announce that people showing disrespect for them in any online forum would be liable to have their agreement cancelled (I have a feeling Fotolia has actually said something like that) and everybody would know that posting here is equivalent to cancelling your account with one agency or another.
-
I hope you decide against this idea, and I hope Microbius comes back!
So do I. He's a good bloke who's opinion I always value and one of a very few selected posters I immediately turn to when I see their name. Of course I say 'he' ... but who knows?
-
Same here. One of my favourite posters on the forum. It will be a poorer place without Microbius.
-
This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional.
What other forum may I ask?
[url]http://forum.freeflysystems.com/index.php[/url] ([url]http://forum.freeflysystems.com/index.php[/url])
Thanks, but I think it's much easier for a forum like this.
-
I like the idea. I am doing business on the internet and for me an online forum is like a trade show or business conference, except that it is always available and ongoing. Since I don´t hide my business, I won´t hide my name, at least not from other forum members. Since everyone can see my portfolio and website links and certainly there are also people following those links with, "inspirational" intentions, I do sometimes feel that I am being taken advantage of by those who don´t share their identity.
There have also been numerous bizarre comments by people who are anonymous and who clearly feel entitled to post and critize others from their "safe" hiding places. So I really think this place will be more professional and interesting if the members take this as a real business place and know the people here are real and they might meet them anyway at places like the microstock expo, photokina or other industry events.
I do understand the fear of being scared of agencies as they all read here and agency members have made it clear to many people, including to me, that they don´t like what I write. But it hasn´t stopped me from being here.
But if someone really feels that threatened then I think a paid option to be anonymous is a very sensible way to handle the dilemma. Maybe lower the amount to 3 dollars for those who really feel the need for total privacy. It might be the agency, their "real world boss", even their government in some countries.
Overall I believe that real names visible to registered forum members with portfolio links will raise the level of professionalism. It just becomes more of a business place.
-
Overall I believe that real names visible to registered forum members with portfolio links will raise the level of professionalism. It just becomes more of a business place.
But nobody except Leaf is doing business here. For the rest of us it is more like a coffee shop where you can drop in for a chat..
-
But that´s business...the watercooler, the coffee shop where everyone in the marketplace chats and "trades" (exchanges) information. Many things you read here help to grow and improve your business.
Not all business events/places involve direct selling and the customers.
-
If I understand correctly, the idea is to reveal real names and 1 portfolio link to logged in members.
I am OK with both, but I wonder if the poll should not be split up in yes/no for both changes. Reading the posts I have the impression that people object more to showing their real name than to revealing 1 portfolio link to logged in members.
-
the one thing i hate about forums is how fake and sickly nice everyone is, outdoing each other with their perfect platitudes - well you don't see that here at all, which is refreshing. But what we do have are people who are probably more touchy and nastier than what they are in real life.
For those who oppose this can you think of a way to improve the situation?
-
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.
-
I have always been pro transparency with identities, but can understand some people want to stay anonymous. I will be quite satisfied if one need to reveal your true identity only to Leaf when registering. This can be done by email, so the info is not even stored on the public server for security.
This will sort out this double identities and at least he will know who he is addressing in case of disciplinary matters and prevent a banned person from coming back. As site owner I think he has the right to this and we will be none the worse from it (IMO actually better). Thus, transparent cleansing.... :P
-
Excellent post jbarber, and you're right, it'll be a very different place indeed.
CD123: I'm a lot happier with that suggestion. I have no problem telling Tyler who I am, but I don't want that information stored anywhere that it could leach out. (Just have to hope that Tyler's mind is a safe place... hahaha).
@ Gillian: Great question. I think if Tyler could look at what exactly he seeks to achieve, if this could be done by developing a new list of forum rules and enforcing those without having to change anything else, then that would be the ideal outcome (IMO).
-
Well, my main reason to be on MSG is to get a lot of news in one central place and to listen to different opinions of people about the markets and agencies.
The main reason I am less often on MSG than I used to is the relatively small amount of people who are trying to hijack almost any useful thread with their repetition of the same story each and every time to each and every thread and start to pick on each other. And all of those are hiding behind anonymous accounts. I don't think that is just random.
-
I think a required link to a portfolio is sufficient. Some microsites allow you to be anonymous so a link to one's port will still afford some form of anonymity while at the same time discouraging opinions and advice from those hiding what kind of images they may or may not produce.
-
I am ok with it. What i think is funny is that both baldricks and gostwyck are objecting (and others), and yet i see people here addressing them by their real first name. I know who they are and i cant imagine it would be too difficult for someone like an agency to find out anyones real identity. I understand the idea but really, if i felt that threatened by an agency, i wouldnt be there. Oh wait, im not.
It would be a shame to lose a lot of good knowledgeable people, but i do think people should be accountable for themselves.
As far as sean and retaliation, i was under the impression that had to with stocksy, not because he spoke his mind. He spoke his mind for several years and remained at the top until stocksy.
I see both sides of the argument, but my vote always goes for honesty.
-
Since everyone can see my portfolio and website links and certainly there are also people following those links with, "inspirational" intentions, I do sometimes feel that I am being taken advantage of by those who don´t share their identity.
You are not 'being taken advantage of'. You are voluntarily giving away your own 'trade secrets'. Why? You might have an image/series that is making you say $50 per month. It only needs one or two folk to click on your port, identify your best-sellers and attempt to replicate them to either halve that income or worse. What's the point? It's entirely possible that your own microstock income might have been reduced by several hundred $'s per month ... just by virtue of the portfolio links that you chose to publish on this forum.
No other business would even dream (make that a nightmare) of sharing such information/ideas with the competition.
I'm not surprised that microstockers are so often regarded as 'amateurs' ... when they act in such an absurdly amateurish fashion. Money matters ... at least to the professional stock photographer.
You need to wake up Jasmine. This is not 2004 and we are no longer in the 'moms with cameras' era when we all helped each other because it was our hobby and the sums earned were a pittance anyway. For many of us this is our actual livelihood and it is not in our interests to give away more information to the competition than necessary.
-
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
-
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
I wouldn't leave MSG but I would sanitize my posts. Any criticism of the agencies would go away. I would just be a lurker. I'd participate in other topics but none in which I'd comment on negative "issue" about an agency. That is a form of sanitizing the forum. I have already been threatened at one agency about what I say and I see no reason they wouldn't follow through with my criticism and their threats.
-
snip
I'm not surprised that microstockers are so often regarded as 'amateurs' ... when they act in such an absurdly amateurish fashion. Money matters ... at least to the professional stock photographer.
Really? By the definition of professional, microstockers are professionals. And even if someone only does this part time, i am pretty sure the money matters. There are plenty of places to post pics for the fun of it, why bother with the hassle of rejections at an agency if the money doesnt matter.
Clearly you are upset, but belittling everyone else isnt the solution. I like the idea of firming up more rules for leaf to stop the verbally abusive trolls from coming back. If that means leaf requires much more information that only he can see, that would be ok too.
-
I support it. It would be nice to know that the people posting here actually have a microstock portfolio somewhere.
-
It is the agencies that are giving away my sales data on the internet, not msg. And I react by selecting what goes where.
Agencies that show individual file download numbers will get a lower choice in content from me and many files they will never see unless the numbers are removed.
But this is a different discussion for another thread.
I see no reason to hide my name because some agencies are clinging to concepts that might have worked in 2000-2004, like you said, but are counterproductive today where more people actually make money from their work.
-
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.
-
Microbius was one of the members with a lot of valuable contributions..
I hope this idea does not go live and posters like Microbius are back..
It was quick though I agree with leaf.. maybe he/she just needed a break ;)
-
I wouldn't pay more than the token amount I already do, so that's a non-starter.
My Real Name isn't the user name I use on iStock, so irrelevant.
Link to my port: who cares? Also it's pretty irrelevant. If someone is quoted as saying that their agency is different to all the rest, and I say it isn't in many cases, what does 'my' port have to do with that? Of course, if I complain/ask for advice about a rejection/deactivation, it's pointless unless I provide a link, that's a given, but the relevant image wouldn't be in my port anyway.
OTOH, there was one person on here who by the way s/he posted you'd have thought was a super high ranking microstocker. I happened to find out who they were and they had tiny ports on a few sites, with less than a 1:1 selling rate on iS after a few years, and I guess it did affect the way I read their posts afterwords. Also made me more questioning about other anonymous posters who post with an 'air of authority' which might just be hot air.
As for the idea that I might meet other members somewhere, I'd say it was 999-1 against, apart from the member I did meet years ago and there's a geographical possibility I might bump into again. Other than that, I don't think many of you are wandering round central Scotland. Besides, I don't say anything on here that I wouldn't say face to face.
On the third hand, I think it would be useful to see people's ports, not to copy them, but when they say they're doing well / not well at a certain site it could be useful to see their port, to know what kind of port sells/doesn't sell at different sites. Just like it's handy on iStock to see that there are already 20 good X images on the site with two sales between them. Clearly, no iS buyers are interested, score it off the shooting list and move on ...
I have no problem with allowing Leaf to have more info. I think he should know that people posting here either have micro ports or intend to do so. So people thinking of entering micro would be welcome, but if they don't indicate ports to him within a certain time - or are posting with issues about getting accepted - why are they here?
-
It is the agencies that are giving away my sales data on the internet, not msg. And I react by selecting what goes where.
Agencies that show individual file download numbers will get a lower choice in content from me and many files they will never see unless the numbers are removed.
But this is a different discussion for another thread.
I see no reason to hide my name because some agencies are clinging to concepts that might have worked in 2000-2004, like you said, but are counterproductive today where more people actually make money from their work.
I think this is a good point. If someone wants to start copying, looking at one individual's port for inspiration isn't going to get you very far. If you want to copy and create the best hamburger image you'll be a lot better off searching the entire istock / Dreamstime / Shutterstock collection and sort by best sales than searching one individual's piddly little portfolio. Sales on 20,000,000 images are going to give better eye popping results than sales on a few thousand images in a single port.
-
Leaf. I know you have something good in mind when you make some changes in forum but as you see many are against it, why dont you just stop people creating new IDs/accounts after deleting old ID/accounts of their own rather disclosing the real identity. And if some one closes his/her account purposely or mistakenly then he/she can only recreate same login ID as earlier (from same IP address) and that too after admin or your approval.
By this way, atleast the IDs or nicknames will remain familiar to everyone. Just a suggestion.
-
@ Cobalt, thats nonsene, the watercooler.... haha. I am not here to do business, its a ridiculous argument.
Alamy has changed their forum rules where your artist name, be it real or made up, is linked to your portfolio and forum profile. That seems to work as well, the forum is a better place now. However, using a real name? No effing way, there is not one forum I have ever joined that made me use my real name. And if that happens, bye bye MSG. Not that anyone cares.
-
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
I wouldn't leave MSG but I would sanitize my posts. Any criticism of the agencies would go away. I would just be a lurker. I'd participate in other topics but none in which I'd comment on negative "issue" about an agency. That is a form of sanitizing the forum. I have already been threatened at one agency about what I say and I see no reason they wouldn't follow through with my criticism and their threats.
If this portfolio linking is going to happen, I will close this account and open a new one
-
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time. If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.
-
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time. If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.
I'm still in the brainstorming stage so nothing is set in stone and I'm open to suggestions if anyone has a brainy idea.
Everyone would be given a little warning (perhaps a week or so) but nobody's name would be published without their consent. If I did decide to go with the 'showing names' route, it would be published from a new field on your profile - which means currently it is blank for everyone and it would be impossible to publish anything without someone manually typing it in first. For those who never fill anything in, their profile would still be active, they just wouldn't be able to post until they filled in their required info.
For the payment upgrade of hidden identities - I don't really know how it will work. I wouldn't have a problem including it as a premium membership feature.. but I'd have to see.. perhaps it would be separate. It surely isn't meant to be a 'money grab'. If nobody paid for the 'hidden identity' I'd be quite happy. It is simply meant as a slight deterrent for those who really feel it is important to be hidden but still want to participate in the discussion.
To confirm identities.. there are lots of ways to work around this problem. A site mail could be sent on MSG saying you just liked image X on dreamstime, or some othersite activity. I'm just trying to avoid someone giving a bogus portfolio as a link.
-
Leaf. I know you have something good in mind when you make some changes in forum but as you see many are against it, why dont you just stop people creating new IDs/accounts after deleting old ID/accounts of their own rather disclosing the real identity. And if some one closes his/her account purposely or mistakenly then he/she can only recreate same login ID as earlier (from same IP address) and that too after admin or your approval.
By this way, atleast the IDs or nicknames will remain familiar to everyone. Just a suggestion.
It's pretty impossible to stop people from signing up under multiple accounts. All you need is an email address or 10 to sign up. I can see IP address and a person with 2 accounts will be visible that way but you can also skirt around that problem with an ip proxy (a pain to try and use long term) .. but also ISP (internet service providers) .. the people you pay for internet, also often change you IP, so if I ban someone, their IP address will eventually change and they will be able to sign up with a new email and user name unknown to all.
Having to confirm your account should stop some of this.
-
oh ok Leaf. I have no problem in giving my 1st name only. And is there any use to give portfolio links ? Just curious. And hope we will get a newsletter to our email address confirming the changes you make.
-
So.... how about making some sections of the forum available to "the public" and parts of the forum accessible (at least for writing) only for "confirmed accounts" if that is somehow an option available within the software you are using. It might be "the best of two worlds"?!?
-
I have to say this is a concern for me. Whilst I'm happy to share information up to a point, at the end the day, as others have touched on, I don't wish too share too much business information. I'm quite happy saying I have 6,000 images at Shutterstock these earn me $xx per month. I'll stop short of showing you the portfolio- that's a personal choice.
There are also many other concerns, one I don't want certain RM competitors to know I deal with macro (they'd start as well, especially when they saw my portfolio and could gauge my income). Two, I've got another job who I don't want to know what I do in my spare time. (they don't need to know). Three, I don't want the publicity, I have a reason for anonymity.
I do take you point Leaf, the more constructive forum the better. I think there needs to be an element of compromise with your idea. Do you want to know point four? Hypothetically if I worked in any capacity for one of the micro agencies in whatever role, they might just have a NDA in place to cover themselves. If this was the case, then why jeopardize that position? This really is a contentious issue; I'd probably withdraw quietly if it was implemented as suggested. The benefits do not outweigh the risks.
-
I can see IP address……
This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons…
-
I can see IP address……
This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons…
Absolutely nothing? That's not the case at all. True, a single IP can be shared by a whole company or university. But it often isn't, and when it is it's easy enough to recognize that fact via reverse IP lookup. Better to say that IP isn't a perfect solution. But it's a solution with a low rate of false positives, which is generally my concern. It's unlikely to block a noninfringer from the same site, so what's the harm?
-
Somebody I knew in London went bankrupt, massive studio debts this and that. Bailiffs came. He had nothing to declare, no income, nothing.
What he had was an extensive portfolio in a well known stock-agency, at least earning him enough to tick over, wife and a kid.
The IRS investigating ofcourse finally found him and his portfolio through the Internet. Several net friends in forums had started to call him by his name, so the pseudo did not help.
Just sharing. It might mean nothing though. Although if they can find, so can the Tax man.
-
I get the idea, but I'd never reveal my identity, and 5 bucks a month - for a tiny minnow like myself, not going to be worth it. Unless the rest of you want to chip in and cover it, so you'll keep getting my insightful posts :-)
-
I can see IP address……
This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons…
Absolutely nothing? That's not the case at all. True, a single IP can be shared by a whole company or university. But it often isn't, and when it is it's easy enough to recognize that fact via reverse IP lookup. Better to say that IP isn't a perfect solution. But it's a solution with a low rate of false positives, which is generally my concern. It's unlikely to block a noninfringer from the same site, so what's the harm?
Well, not absolutely nothing, but…
At home we have 6 computers and some other devices (tablet, smartphones) all these use the same IP to connect, so really IP don't means a lot for me…
And more people can use the same machine.
And people can connect from the wifi of a bar, or from some internet club…
Just imagine some conflict in family… My son registers on the forum and through the same IP as me he begins to write insanities…… :D
-
I don't have a problem with real identities. My user name has always been my real name, and it's the same user name at most sites. I've never seen any reprisals, and I've said some pretty negative stuff.
I'm not sure if real identities will "clean up" the forum though. There are a lot of strong personalities (both anonymous and not) here, so the conversations will still probably be pretty spirited.
-
Leaf if you decide to go ahead with this can you make sure that we are informed in good time so that if we don't want our names made public we can delete our accounts in time. If we choose to pay would this be instead of as well as our normal yearly payment? I'd also rather not confirm links through site mail as I'm sure the companies have access to site mail.
I'm still in the brainstorming stage so nothing is set in stone and I'm open to suggestions if anyone has a brainy idea.
Everyone would be given a little warning (perhaps a week or so) but nobody's name would be published without their consent. If I did decide to go with the 'showing names' route, it would be published from a new field on your profile - which means currently it is blank for everyone and it would be impossible to publish anything without someone manually typing it in first. For those who never fill anything in, their profile would still be active, they just wouldn't be able to post until they filled in their required info.
For the payment upgrade of hidden identities - I don't really know how it will work. I wouldn't have a problem including it as a premium membership feature.. but I'd have to see.. perhaps it would be separate. It surely isn't meant to be a 'money grab'. If nobody paid for the 'hidden identity' I'd be quite happy. It is simply meant as a slight deterrent for those who really feel it is important to be hidden but still want to participate in the discussion.
To confirm identities.. there are lots of ways to work around this problem. A site mail could be sent on MSG saying you just liked image X on dreamstime, or some othersite activity. I'm just trying to avoid someone giving a bogus portfolio as a link.
Great, that all sounds perfect then.
-
Well I'm out too, bye
Me too
Leaf,
I think it's not a bad idea. In general, I think openness is a good thing.
At the same time, I'm seeing my work get copied more and more on the major sites, with quite a few people following me on SS, and I just know many or all of those are copycats who like to get convenient updates on my newest stuff to copy.
I've been vocal here on how my earnings have grown, and how I've gotten there. I've tried to help others with my views on how to think of ms as a business, be marketing-focused, etc. But linking people right to my pictures to show them exactly what subjects and styles have earned a sizable income for me would be pure insanity.
So I'd be out as well.
-
I can see IP address……
This means absolutely nothing, a single IP address can be shared even by 1 000 000 persons…
Absolutely nothing? That's not the case at all. True, a single IP can be shared by a whole company or university. But it often isn't, and when it is it's easy enough to recognize that fact via reverse IP lookup. Better to say that IP isn't a perfect solution. But it's a solution with a low rate of false positives, which is generally my concern. It's unlikely to block a noninfringer from the same site, so what's the harm?
I thought most ISPs were using dynamic IPs nowadays. My IP changes almost daily.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
$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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
Don't forget about Bobby Deal (that's his name right?), he was kicked out of Fotolia I think for what he said on this site. If I wanted to contribute to Fotolia there is no way I would say a bad thing on here with a link to my real name, username, or portfolio.
-
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
At least we should check an make sure everyone is a black diamond before they are allowed to post that they had a good month. ;)
-
... 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?
Let me answer that for you Lisa:
YES!
If you have any questions regarding my response, kindly refer to Sean Locke for further clarification! That is all.
-
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
Luis, I think you're onto something aren't you... ;)
-
I have always used the same name here and at all the stock sites (except 123rf because they made my user name for me). I do have pretty strong opinions about forcing people's names to be visible, even to logged in users.
In an ideal world, there would be no problem with contributors expressing their views in public forums, even if they weren't supportive of an agency. It isn't an ideal world. Fotolia, among its flaws, has written that it reserves the right to close accounts for unsupportive behavior in public forums. It has done that. It deleted Bobby Deal's account (and he was clearly rude and negative, but I don't think that in any way justifies what Fotolia did). They threatened to close my account when I was actively advocating that contributors should withhold uploads when they introduced subscriptions (with rotten terms and royalties). I left to become exclusive at IS in August 2008 and some time after that (following a critical post here, I think over their games with payments in various currencies) they closed my account. When I contacted Fotolia on leaving IS exclusivity I was told they no longer wished to do business with me.
iStock has deleted site mail from my account (I think because they realized they'd embarrased themselves) and banned me from their forums for a mildly sarcastic remark about their failure to fix bugs (no personal insults or other poor behavior).
I would not want to give the agencies any more tools to hurt contributors than they already have. If you want to verify accounts, that's fine with me as long as:
1) no names are visible even to logged in users. Knowing that someone's verified as a contributor should be enough
2) Porfolio links are optional
I think you could solve rudeness and trolling problems via other avenues. Ban trolls and blowhards sooner, perhaps?
I'm quite happy to ignore the regular, repetitive trolls. I'd pay to have any quoting of an ignored user's post become invisible too - if you want to increase the premium member fee and make it a premium feature :) Or perhaps mark on the home page posts with ignored users' posts (with a count of same) - that way I can ignore the threads that become tit-for-tat p*33ing contents.
I find I can gather the useful content and ignore those who contribute more heat than light as things are now. Having a portfolio doesn't preclude someone being argumentative - we have plenty of examples of that here.
-
... 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?
Let me answer that for you Lisa:
YES!
If you have any questions regarding my response, kindly refer to Sean Locke for further clarification! That is all.
Or have everyone copy your work, to me that's the bigger concern although agency retaliation is a real possibility.
-
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
Luis, I think you're onto something aren't you... ;)
nothing mate just thought absurd that Jens wanted to know my full name and address, actually I am afraid of stalkers because I have a cute profile picture at most agencies ;D
-
Hey T,
Looking at the response to the question on your votes I would say it is a strong support towards the YES as the people that are trolls and angry posters are going to be the first to vote against it so you probably have to decrease the NO votes by a good 25%-50% :) This was a joke ya'll!
Cheers,
J
-
Hey T,
Looking at the response to the question on your votes I would say it is a strong support towards the YES as the people that are trolls and angry posters are going to be the first to vote against it so you probably have to decrease the NO votes by a good 25%-50% :) This was a joke ya'll!
Cheers,
J
Yikes, I don't have a clue what that means. I think you're calling me a troll but I'm not sure.
-
...actually I am afraid of stalkers because I have a cute profile picture at most agencies ;D
Seriously - not funny. not at all. sorry luis.
-
...actually I am afraid of stalkers because I have a cute profile picture at most agencies ;D
Seriously - not funny. not at all. sorry luis.
you will need to laugh or I will stop liking your pictures in FB, I really like them :)
-
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.
Don't forget about Bobby Deal (that's his name right?), he was kicked out of Fotolia I think for what he said on this site. If I wanted to contribute to Fotolia there is no way I would say a bad thing on here with a link to my real name, username, or portfolio.
But it wouldnt really matter because a Fotolia forum admin is posting here amongst us, using his real name I add and he knows who is who, just as the rest of us do.
-
Thanks so much LisaFX and JSnover for those wise and fair-minded comments. Much appreciated here.
It frankly creeps me out to see people who already have their names exposed through choice, advocating that everyone else should do so (i.e. have their choice removed). I'm not a fan of the mentality that says 'What is right for me is right for all'.
-
Thanks so much LisaFX and JSnover's for those wise and fair-minded comments. Much appreciated here.
It frankly creeps me out to see people who already have their names exposed through choice, advocating that everyone else should do so (i.e. have their choice removed). I'm not a fan of the mentality that says 'What is right for me is right for all'.
I agree! I believe we are tied to a lot of crap from agencies without much choice, here we must be free to opt in/out on anonymity
-
It frankly creeps me out to see people who already have their names exposed through choice, advocating that everyone else should do so (i.e. have their choice removed). I'm not a fan of the mentality that says 'What is right for me is right for all'.
^^Same here. I feel the same way about gay marriage and legalization of pot, although I am neither gay nor a pot user. Not everybody has to make the same choices as everybody else, and forcing them to is just wrong.
-
People who dare not come foreward and speak with their names are not worth listening to or taking into the debate.
There is a time when a man must do what a man must do.
And it starts with saying who he is.
If you are anonymous, you can say all kinds of s..... and it wouldnt reflect on you. It is free. And cost nothing.
If you use your name, you would have to mean what you say. And your statements would cost, as they should.
And then all this business with the agencies coming after you for opening your mouth.
So be it. If they do that, they operate on low business ethics and no pride... and they wont last.
pride is important and in pride lies your name.
-
It frankly creeps me out to see people who already have their names exposed through choice, advocating that everyone else should do so (i.e. have their choice removed).
The paranoia and conspiracy theories of the anonymous creep me out a bit too. ;D
All kidding aside, I don't care all that much either way. I think it would be an interesting experiment for the forum. It would be tough to implement though, since so many seem against it.
-
I agree with you there too Lisa.
JPSDK, perhaps you've never read a pseudonymous novel or poem, because the author would not be worth listening to.
Cthoman - there's nothing creepy about me I assure you. ;)
-
It frankly creeps me out to see people who already have their names exposed through choice, advocating that everyone else should do so (i.e. have their choice removed). I'm not a fan of the mentality that says 'What is right for me is right for all'.
^^Same here. I feel the same way about gay marriage and legalization of pot, although I am neither gay nor a pot user. Not everybody has to make the same choices as everybody else, and forcing them to is just wrong.
What are you being forced to do? You can choose not to participate.
-
I agree with you there too Lisa.
JPSDK, perhaps you've never read a pseudonymous novel or poem, because the author would not be worth listening to.
Cthoman - there's nothing creepy about me I assure you. ;)
I read Pauline Reage...
-
People who dare not come foreward and speak with their names are not worth listening to or taking into the debate.
There is a time when a man must do what a man must do.
And it starts with saying who he is.
If you are anonymous, you can say all kinds of s..... and it wouldnt reflect on you. It is free. And cost nothing.
If you use your name, you would have to mean what you say. And your statements would cost, as they should.
And then all this business with the agencies coming after you for opening your mouth.
So be it. If they do that, they operate on low business ethics and no pride... and they wont last.
pride is important and in pride lies your name.
Consider following example - someone says something using with his or her real name. The stuff turns out to be idiotic or just a mistake. It gets quoted outside the forum with the real name - spreads through the internet like wildfire. Person has meanwhile realized his mistake and apologized in forum for it. Forum members are fine have forgiven that person - the rest of the world does not know about that - and knows the person as an idiot - including people who have nothing to do with the forum task, but who may matter to that person in other areas of life.
-
so if my neighborhood gets a few houses broken into do we make all the home owners put their name on the street, make them wear ID badges and have them be house by 9pm, with doors locked, or do we start a neighborhood watch to nail the few bad apples and not ruin the freedom of the neighborhood?
Maybe leave good alone and develop a 'Troll Patrol'? I know you folks are super smart and some can even drill do to the IP address to catch the troll! Once the troll IP address is found we shut it off at the site. I once saw a fishing website do that to trolls! Yeah, the troll will have to get a new IP address and handle but it will be fun nailing them in the troll hunting! Maybe we have a Troll killer of the month award lol!
Tom
-
Thanks for all the thoughts everyone. I've plussed a lot of posts, both for and against the idea.
A good point was made that creating just a dummy name isn't hard and would be rather hard to disprove. A portfolio link would be a better, more reliable solution but would be quite a bit of work to double check. perhaps the idea with both was to set the tone of a professional meeting place where we came with our real identities. If there was ever an issue with a poster, then things could be double checked to confirm their identity.
I have also toyed with the idea of having a special area for either those who are willing to show their identity or special area for those who don't want to reveal their identity. I think that could be an alright solution and would be quite easy to implement but would have the danger of multiple threads on the same subject for each group would be very confusing and nonconstructive. It is a solution that finds a bit of middle ground however.
I agree that there are a lot of respected and respectful members that are anonymous and it would be a shame to loose them. What is easy to forget however, is the people that may join the conversation if it were to become more transparent.
-
People who dare not come foreward and speak with their names are not worth listening to or taking into the debate.
There is a time when a man must do what a man must do.
And it starts with saying who he is.
If you are anonymous, you can say all kinds of s..... and it wouldnt reflect on you. It is free. And cost nothing.
If you use your name, you would have to mean what you say. And your statements would cost, as they should.
And then all this business with the agencies coming after you for opening your mouth.
So be it. If they do that, they operate on low business ethics and no pride... and they wont last.
pride is important and in pride lies your name.
Consider following example - someone says something using with his or her real name. The stuff turns out to be idiotic or just a mistake. It gets quoted outside the forum with the real name - spreads through the internet like wildfire. Person has meanwhile realized his mistake and apologized in forum for it. Forum members are fine have forgiven that person - the rest of the world does not know about that - and knows the person as an idiot - including people who have nothing to do with the forum task, but who may matter to that person in other areas of life.
I think your scenario is a stretch.
Leaf's suggestion: "Everyone on the forum has to add a portfolio link and their real name to their profile (at least first name.. or possibly first name and last initial.. for example). Their name will be displayed under their user name but will NOT show publicly .. only to logged in users. The user name is all that will show publicly.'
-
Jesus man, there are confrontations here. I have never ever posted anything that got so many minuses so quickly.
I can see the advantages of an anonymous forum.
I can see the disadvantages of an anonymous forum.
But actually I dont think either is important.
Throughout history people have uttered their opinion, at revolutions, in KZ camps or in internet forums.
It has often happened they have been decapitated and put to death.
Serious things has happened. The worlds history was pushed in a direction. Revolutions and tea parties. Individuals died.
But nothing ever happened by anonymous statements, only chaos and undermining from all sides. The ruler continued to rule.
As well as you can come up with a great statement anonymously, your eneimies can do the same in your name, and contradict it and make everything meaningless.
When you are anonymous, you are free to speak, and can say everything. And such over the years everything will be said by anonymous people: obsenities, hatred and slander. There is no payback, noone can be held guilty.
I think the basic interaction between men is the rule of law: people can say anything to eachother, but it counts.
-
It frankly creeps me out to see people who already have their names exposed through choice, advocating that everyone else should do so (i.e. have their choice removed). I'm not a fan of the mentality that says 'What is right for me is right for all'.
^^Same here. I feel the same way about gay marriage and legalization of pot, although I am neither gay nor a pot user. Not everybody has to make the same choices as everybody else, and forcing them to is just wrong.
What are you being forced to do? You can choose not to participate.
Gay marriage and pot are illegal, thus taking away any choice for people who want to mary their gay partner or smoke pot if they please to. I think thats what Lisa meant. People forced that illegality on others.
-
...actually I am afraid of stalkers because I have a cute profile picture at most agencies ;D
Seriously - not funny. not at all. sorry luis.
I thought that was pretty funny, actually.
-
People who dare not come foreward and speak with their names are not worth listening to or taking into the debate.
There is a time when a man must do what a man must do.
And it starts with saying who he is.
If you are anonymous, you can say all kinds of s..... and it wouldnt reflect on you. It is free. And cost nothing.
If you use your name, you would have to mean what you say. And your statements would cost, as they should.
And then all this business with the agencies coming after you for opening your mouth.
So be it. If they do that, they operate on low business ethics and no pride... and they wont last.
pride is important and in pride lies your name.
Consider following example - someone says something using with his or her real name. The stuff turns out to be idiotic or just a mistake. It gets quoted outside the forum with the real name - spreads through the internet like wildfire. Person has meanwhile realized his mistake and apologized in forum for it. Forum members are fine have forgiven that person - the rest of the world does not know about that - and knows the person as an idiot - including people who have nothing to do with the forum task, but who may matter to that person in other areas of life.
I think your scenario is a stretch.
Leaf's suggestion: Everyone on the forum has to add a portfolio link and their real name to their profile (at least first name.. or possibly first name and last initial.. for example). Their name will be displayed under their user name but will NOT show publicly .. only to logged in users. The user name is all that will show publicly.
Let's hope it is a stretch, unfortunately, I know it is not as much as a stretch as you may think it is. And maybe just the first name and the first initial makes it less dangerous. Still it does not prevent that some quote could be posted outside the forum revealing the real (first) name. Which may enhance the danger of the reveal of the persons real identity and this having repercussions in life outside of the photography business.
Another point, if leaf as a site admin just knows first name and first initial - how is this any different then just having a nickname with regard to verification of contributor?
Portfoliolinks are potentially problematic as newbies interested in contributing but not having a portfolio on any agency yet might be excluded from posting.
-
How about just enforcing these rules on suspected trolls. Or just delete trolls as soon as they start trolling rather than leaving them so long before deleting.
-
telling a name/portfolio link may be fake also, we can all create a portfolio (2 or 3 pictures) at an agency (we have 100 for that effect) and we are clean again to join MSG, this may be time consuming but nothing a troll wouldn't love doing
-
You're right there Luis. Something I find incomprehensible about trolls is the height of their boredom threshold. They'll seemingly do everything that it takes to keep coming back and back and back... and for what? Some inexplicable sense of self-gratification in winding people up.
I'm sure the things you suggest will not be a big stretch for them. I'd die inside if I had to live like that to get a quick thrill.
Totally agree with Fotografer's comment too.
-
... Throughout history people have uttered their opinion, at revolutions, in KZ camps or in internet forums....
Starting comparisons between KZ camps and internet forums because of some anonymity issue is a bit of a far stretch to put it very, very, mildly.
...But nothing ever happened by anonymous statements, only chaos and undermining from all sides. The ruler continued to rule.
And Leaf, as the ruler, will do whatever he deems necessary, leaving it up to him whether any of my personal statements are considered "undermining" this community.
...When you are anonymous, you are free to speak, and can say everything. And such over the years everything will be said by anonymous people: obscenities, hatred and slander.
Please, point out to me when I have been obscene, showed hatred towards another member or committed slander on this forum. Because if you make statements here that are unsubstantiated then you are the one who is hiding behind this anonymity. You are generalizing anonymous folks, you are putting me into the same pot with trolls and members that do not respect one another. I do not appreciate that.
There is no payback, no one can be held guilty.
Yes there is. They will be banned. IP will be blocked. Email will be blocked. And btw. you say "there is no payback". Are we going back in the days to an eye for an eye? I thought we are some civilized bunch of microstockers here. Let some troll have his 5 minutes of fame. Eventually they will be removed, end of story.
I think the basic interaction between men is the rule of law: people can say anything to each other, but it counts.
Since English isn't my native tongue I hope I interpret this correctly: That everything somebody says should be thoughtful and well considered before insulting or disrespecting your conversation partner. I'm all for that. Me being anonymous should not change this one bit.
-
How about just enforcing these rules on suspected trolls. Or just delete trolls as soon as they start trolling rather than leaving them so long before deleting.
Poor Leaf can't be reading posts 24 hours a day. What about appointing some pseudo-administrators to help out? I don't want to propagate a police-state, just get some help for Tyler if this is the solution.
-
How about just enforcing these rules on suspected trolls. Or just delete trolls as soon as they start trolling rather than leaving them so long before deleting.
Poor Leaf can't be reading posts 24 hours a day. What about appointing some pseudo-administrators to help out? I don't want to propagate a police-state, just get some help for Tyler if this is the solution.
Yeah, it is a bit of a daunting task to keep up I admit. Threads that I know are friendly I skim. Controversial threads I try to keep up to date with. I have avoided having additional moderators because I fear it would just open up another can of worms that would be hard to regulate. I like having myself only to blame for what happens here and setting rules for other moderators would be tough as there are many grey zones.
Many people report out of line posts or plain spam posts which is appreciated, and members with over 1000 posts can move threads to a hidden area if things get crazy while I'm MIA.
-
Somebody I knew in London went bankrupt, massive studio debts this and that. Bailiffs came. He had nothing to declare, no income, nothing.
What he had was an extensive portfolio in a well known stock-agency, at least earning him enough to tick over, wife and a kid.
The IRS investigating ofcourse finally found him and his portfolio through the Internet. Several net friends in forums had started to call him by his name, so the pseudo did not help.
Just sharing. It might mean nothing though. Although if they can find, so can the Tax man.
I know the point about identity that you are getting across.... But seriously, is it not the law in London to claim all income? It is here. Are you saying it's a crime that he got caught committing tax fraud? That people with jobs should pay taxes but not people who sell photos?
-
Click...
What you say is reasonable and I do not disagree much, we could dig into nuances and find or not find consensus.
Im not accusing you, im pointing a finger at the whole anonymous mechanism.
Which I dont like, it is not productive.
-
Somebody I knew in London went bankrupt, massive studio debts this and that. Bailiffs came. He had nothing to declare, no income, nothing.
What he had was an extensive portfolio in a well known stock-agency, at least earning him enough to tick over, wife and a kid.
The IRS investigating ofcourse finally found him and his portfolio through the Internet. Several net friends in forums had started to call him by his name, so the pseudo did not help.
Just sharing. It might mean nothing though. Although if they can find, so can the Tax man.
I know the point about identity that you are getting across.... But seriously, is it not the law in London to claim all income? It is here. Are you saying it's a crime that he got caught committing tax fraud? That people with jobs should pay taxes but not people who sell photos?
Nice one
-
Click...
What you say is reasonable and I do not disagree much, we could dig into nuances and find or not find consensus.
Im not accusing you, im pointing a finger at the whole anonymous mechanism.
Which I dont like, it is not productive.
What is not productive is trolls!
It has nothing to do with people that are anonymous!
Anonymous members don't equal trolls.
However, 99% of the trolls are anonymous.
So you're basically shooting birds with canons by eliminating anonymity. That's not a very eloquent approach IMO.
Leaf pulls the strings, he should "rule" over who he deems is worthy participating on his forum, although this already sounds a bit weird... - Point is, Leaf will have to ban the exposed trolls.
And let me throw something out there for a second for everyone to think about:
Assuming all microstockgroup members would have their identities revealed instantly, right now - do you really believe that fact would make all the discussions more "refreshingly positive and constructive"?
Seriously, by taking the members that already post here any given day, if we change all of their identity status, would we really have better discussions? It' still the same people, same opinions...
Call me ignorant or whatever, but I cannot see a correlation between existing forum members having "better" discussions because now they can look at each others portfolios.
Anyone, please, what am I missing?
-
Lobo's loving every minute of this....
-
Lobo's loving every minute of this....
actually he is quite sad coz he won't be able to troll anymore ;D
-
Somebody I knew in London went bankrupt, massive studio debts this and that. Bailiffs came. He had nothing to declare, no income, nothing.
What he had was an extensive portfolio in a well known stock-agency, at least earning him enough to tick over, wife and a kid.
The IRS investigating ofcourse finally found him and his portfolio through the Internet. Several net friends in forums had started to call him by his name, so the pseudo did not help.
Just sharing. It might mean nothing though. Although if they can find, so can the Tax man.
I know the point about identity that you are getting across.... But seriously, is it not the law in London to claim all income? It is here. Are you saying it's a crime that he got caught committing tax fraud? That people with jobs should pay taxes but not people who sell photos?
Nice one
He owed money, someone else had to pay for his escapades. I have no respect for people hiding because they owe money to other people.
-
Click...
What you say is reasonable and I do not disagree much, we could dig into nuances and find or not find consensus.
Im not accusing you, im pointing a finger at the whole anonymous mechanism.
Which I dont like, it is not productive.
What is not productive is trolls!
It has nothing to do with people that are anonymous!
Anonymous members don't equal trolls.
However, 99% of the trolls are anonymous.
So you're basically shooting birds with canons by eliminating anonymity. That's not a very eloquent approach IMO.
Leaf pulls the strings, he should "rule" over who he deems is worthy participating on his forum, although this already sounds a bit weird... - Point is, Leaf will have to ban the exposed trolls.
And let me throw something out there for a second for everyone to think about:
Assuming all microstockgroup members would have their identities revealed instantly, right now - do you really believe that fact would make all the discussions more "refreshingly positive and constructive"?
Seriously, by taking the members that already post here any given day, if we change all of their identity status, would we really have better discussions? It' still the same people, same opinions...
Call me ignorant or whatever, but I cannot see a correlation between existing forum members having "better" discussions because now they can look at each others portfolios.
Anyone, please, what am I missing?
You may be right.. and might not be.. I don't really know. That would be what the 1 month trial would find out.
And I'll repeat myself just so no one misunderstands. If I decided to implement this (as a test or permanent) everyone's identities would not all of a sudden be revealed. People would have to physically type in their identity, which would then be shown. Nothing would be automatic.
-
Lobo's loving every minute of this....
actually he is quite sad coz he won't be able to troll anymore ;D
Man you are on fire today ;D
-
I think what you are suggesting is too much of a reaction to cure the problem. I can think of only 3 forum members I'd like to never hear from again, two of them I think have been previously banned.
Wherever you go in life, there's always a small number of people spoiling things for everyone else.
It seems to me that all you need to do is re-ban people more quickly - as soon as you realise who it is, and that doesn't take long.
-
Somebody I knew in London went bankrupt, massive studio debts this and that. Bailiffs came. He had nothing to declare, no income, nothing.
What he had was an extensive portfolio in a well known stock-agency, at least earning him enough to tick over, wife and a kid.
The IRS investigating ofcourse finally found him and his portfolio through the Internet. Several net friends in forums had started to call him by his name, so the pseudo did not help.
Just sharing. It might mean nothing though. Although if they can find, so can the Tax man.
I know the point about identity that you are getting across.... But seriously, is it not the law in London to claim all income? It is here. Are you saying it's a crime that he got caught committing tax fraud? That people with jobs should pay taxes but not people who sell photos?
Nice one
He owed money, someone else had to pay for his escapades. I have no respect for people hiding because they owe money to other people.
Yes, but why are you telling me? :)
-
I think what you are suggesting is too much of a reaction to cure the problem. I can think of only 3 forum members I'd like to never hear from again, two of them I think have been previously banned.
Wherever you go in life, there's always a small number of people spoiling things for everyone else.
It seems to me that all you need to do is re-ban people more quickly - as soon as you realise who it is, and that doesn't take long.
I have never lived in a place without having a neighbor who harassed or annoyed the sh!t out of me. There are "weird" people everywhere... even on the internet believe it or not.
-
noone wants trolls. + They are not relevant for the discussion,
Just get rid of them by whatever means.
The discussion here is between the anonymous party and the non anonymous party.
I can see both sides, but I really think the anonymous part has more drawbacks than benifits.
But I ask you to convince me:
What are the advantages for the forum (not for the individual) to have anonymous participants.
-
But I ask you to convince me:
What are the advantages for the forum (not for the individual) to have anonymous participants.
You wouldn't get to hear me anymore if anonymous participants weren't allowed. :) If that doesn't convince you I don't know what will.
-
noone wants trolls. + They are not relevant for the discussion,
Just get rid of them by whatever means.
The discussion here is between the anonymous party and the non anonymous party.
I can see both sides, but I really think the anonymous part has more drawbacks than benifits.
But I ask you to convince me:
What are the advantages for the forum (not for the individual) to have anonymous participants.
The advantage for the forum is more open and honest, and by definition, more interesting, discussion of issues.
Those who are not anonymous are bound to think more carefully about consequences before expressing any opinions.
-
He owed money, someone else had to pay for his escapades. I have no respect for people hiding because they owe money to other people.
Speaking of someone not having respect for someone else:
OT here, sorry I had to, did anyone hear about Apple's practices how to avoid being taxed (at all) ?
By founding a company in Ireland that handles most global sales (left column, blue border).
American tax law states:
A company has has to report to the tax authorities where the company was founded.
Irish tax law states:
A company has to report to tax authorities where it is being managed.
According to the graph below (sorry it's German) - it just illustrates the simplified version of Apple's subsidiaries, Apple is able to completely avoid taxes on sales for most of their products (billions of $$$).
(http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-498311-galleryV9-ntdi.jpg)
Apple users please take this into consideration whenever purchasing their products.
Although I'm all for paying taxes, I think the governments should have bigger fish to fry than some photographer not paying his taxes...
-
But I ask you to convince me:
What are the advantages for the forum (not for the individual) to have anonymous participants.
You wouldn't get to hear me anymore if anonymous participants weren't allowed. :) If that doesn't convince you I don't know what will.
Priceless. 8)
-
Lobo's loving every minute of this....
actually he is quite sad coz he won't be able to troll anymore ;D
I would like to see the pieman account marked as an agency employee - I'd like agency folks to be ID with the special icon whether they want to be ID'd or not. Most of us know that Lobo is pieman here, but for the wellbeing of newcomers who might not realize it, knowing it's an agency person matters
-
@ click click, please edit your comment with Apple image, I never said that, please quote the correct person. See, one more reason to be anonymous, that quote is now addressed to me when I never said that. Could cause problems down the line if it had been my real name.
-
@ click click, please edit your comment with Apple image, I never said that, please quote the correct person. See, one more reason to be anonymous, that quote is now addressed to me when I never said that. Could cause problems down the line if it had been my real name.
I'm sorry, I corrected it. No idea what happened I quoted JPSDK's post... Weird.
-
Somebody I knew in London went bankrupt, massive studio debts this and that. Bailiffs came. He had nothing to declare, no income, nothing.
What he had was an extensive portfolio in a well known stock-agency, at least earning him enough to tick over, wife and a kid.
The IRS investigating ofcourse finally found him and his portfolio through the Internet. Several net friends in forums had started to call him by his name, so the pseudo did not help.
Just sharing. It might mean nothing though. Although if they can find, so can the Tax man.
I know the point about identity that you are getting across.... But seriously, is it not the law in London to claim all income? It is here. Are you saying it's a crime that he got caught committing tax fraud? That people with jobs should pay taxes but not people who sell photos?
The point about identity obviously did not get across to you at all or you would have replied differently. Anyway you scored 3 hearts so I dont want to take anything away from you. Youre right people that sell photos should NEVER pay any taxes ::) ::) in fact they should get PAID for not having to pay tax.
-
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.
Don't forget about Bobby Deal (that's his name right?), he was kicked out of Fotolia I think for what he said on this site. If I wanted to contribute to Fotolia there is no way I would say a bad thing on here with a link to my real name, username, or portfolio.
Yes I remember and Laurin Rinder also had his account terminated at Istock for something he posted at MSG about the review process at IStock. They deleted his entire port in direct response to his post here.
-
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.
Don't forget about Bobby Deal (that's his name right?), he was kicked out of Fotolia I think for what he said on this site. If I wanted to contribute to Fotolia there is no way I would say a bad thing on here with a link to my real name, username, or portfolio.
Yes I remember and Laurin Rinder also had his account terminated at Istock for something he posted at MSG about the review process at IStock. They deleted his entire port in direct response to his post here.
Laurin Rinder didn't get kicked off for something he said it was for something he did. (although talking about it on the forum is what got him caught)
-
I guess I'm not really seeing the problem with 'trolls'. It's just text on a screen, people. They're not camping in your front lawn and using bullhorns.
Is this really about cleaning up the forum to attract more and better advertisers? If so, I totally understand. Leaf has every right to make money from his efforts. Maybe the answer is 2 forums, one 'sanitary' and one not.
-
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.
Don't forget about Bobby Deal (that's his name right?), he was kicked out of Fotolia I think for what he said on this site. If I wanted to contribute to Fotolia there is no way I would say a bad thing on here with a link to my real name, username, or portfolio.
Yes I remember and Laurin Rinder also had his account terminated at Istock for something he posted at MSG about the review process at IStock. They deleted his entire port in direct response to his post here.
Laurin Rinder didn't get kicked off for something he said it was for something he did. (although talking about it on the forum is what got him caught)
Yes I agree, I can not remember the exact turn of events. But it does show that the sites watch and are fully capable of being vindictive if they do not like what you are posting.
-
From what I remember he had someone he knows upload some of his images to their portfolio to "prove" that the reviewers were biased or being unfair to him.
ETA here is the thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/)
-
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.
Don't forget about Bobby Deal (that's his name right?), he was kicked out of Fotolia I think for what he said on this site. If I wanted to contribute to Fotolia there is no way I would say a bad thing on here with a link to my real name, username, or portfolio.
Yes I remember and Laurin Rinder also had his account terminated at Istock for something he posted at MSG about the review process at IStock. They deleted his entire port in direct response to his post here.
Laurin Rinder didn't get kicked off for something he said it was for something he did. (although talking about it on the forum is what got him caught)
Yes I agree, I can not remember the exact turn of events. But it does show that the sites watch and are fully capable of being vindictive if they do not like what you are posting.
I believe the story was that he had someone else submit his photos to prove the reviews at IS where skewed and that his images were unfairly rejected. He posted the results on the forum here and got copped out by IS. Later he asked Tyler to close his account but that was for different reasons if I recall correctly. I know he is still reading the forum.
-
I guess I'm not really seeing the problem with 'trolls'. It's just text on a screen, people. They're not camping in your front lawn and using bullhorns.
Is this really about cleaning up the forum to attract more and better advertisers? If so, I totally understand. Leaf has every right to make money from his efforts. Maybe the answer is 2 forums, one 'sanitary' and one not.
This is more about sleeping soundly at night and not being in a panic every morning to check my emails in case something 'broke loose' while I was sleeping. I was also given a taste of what a 'real identities' forum is like, and I like it and wondered that that would be here.
In regards to advertisers, the advertisers have been pretty steady the last few years, I don't feel the need for more.
I've also considered have a sub site many times and even registered a few domains for that purpose but never figured out a good way to implement it.
-
I was also given a taste of what a 'real identities' forum is like, and I like it and wondered that that would be here.
It may not be the same here, people have different interests that aren't compatible. Bruce and Stocksy want to bash all the microstock sites and photographers to gain some part of the market, I don't think that will be reconciled by getting rid of anonymity.
-
I'm using my real name as my username, so I think it's a good idea to know who you're talking to. Being anonymous means you take no responsibility for your words. Who can benefit from that?
I'm concerned about users with 10 or less pictures in their portfolio and 2 months of stock advising people around about stock photography.
-
But I ask you to convince me:
What are the advantages for the forum (not for the individual) to have anonymous participants.
I would say that a reading of this forum thread should make the advantages of allowing anonymity obvious already. We have, so far, examples of Sean Locke, JoAnn Snover, Bobby Deal, and Laurin Rinder all having been directly penalized by various agencies as a result of things they've said or admitted to in these forums.
We also have a growing list of valuable "anonymous" contributors who will cease to participate at all if they are forced to go public.
Even though I won't be directly affected, as I am already public, I expect we will all be affected by the chill this is going to put over the open exchange of ideas and information. If I wanted sanitized pablum I would still be frequenting the agency forums.
-
I'm using my real name as my username, so I think it's a good idea to know who you're talking to. Being anonymous means you take no responsibility for your words. Who can benefit from that?
I'm concerned about users with 10 or less pictures in their portfolio and 2 months of stock advising people around about stock photography.
Bollocks
-
Well, the poll says 50/50, so not really helping Leaf making a decision. Best thing to do is test the waters and see what happens. Just do it and see how many gray names will pop up and how many new names will pop up. There is your answer
-
A few common themes here:
The "anti" folks are great at adding minuses
Fear can be legitimate or I would have said cowardice (although I really think the retaliation thing, Sean notwithstanding, is unlikely)
The copycat theory is just daft - why would posting here increase the chance of that over, say, having your images on a stock site or even many stock sites?
Perhaps not names just a portfolio link?
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
-
I'm using my real name as my username, so I think it's a good idea to know who you're talking to. Being anonymous means you take no responsibility for your words. Who can benefit from that?
I'm concerned about users with 10 or less pictures in their portfolio and 2 months of stock advising people around about stock photography.
Bollocks
Why bollocks? The bolded piece is a factual statement and the entire point of the discussion.
-
I don't think first name last initial and a portfolio link is at all unreasonable.
Personally I don't see a huge problem with trolls here, I do sometimes see a problem with lack of respect. Some seem to think a "troll" is someone who disagrees with the majority opinion...loudly. Just because they annoy you and you disagree does not mean they are "trolling." I think many get confused by someone that has an unpopular opinion versus some bored 13 year old that comes on a board just to rile people up for fun. There is an ignore button if you don't feel like wasting your own time refusing to agree to disagree.
The second thing is it makes me really sad to see so many people thinking that the solution to the behavior of companies like Fotolia is to hide and censor themselves rather than deciding to work with better partners or pushing for a change in policy. There seems to be a ton of complaining about bad policies but when people refuse to fight back what change can be expected?
I also see a people that feel comfortable behind anonymous user names sometimes making personal attacks that they wouldn't consider if they were being held responsible by being identified. I've often taken breaks from reading MSG after being turned off by overly passionate mob mentality that can up with certain subjects. Maybe the conversations would be kept more civil if there was more accountability.
Some of the more civilized forums and communities I frequent are the ones where people use names or at least links to their work and have open discussions that tend to remain more civil. Then I look at things like Youtube comments and see anonymity at work. I lean toward humanizing things as much as possible. I like the idea of a name and initial, maybe just that is enough to remind us that there is a person behind that opinion and you can express yours without insults.
-
.
-
I don't think first name last initial and a portfolio link is at all unreasonable.
Personally I don't see a huge problem with trolls here, I do sometimes see a problem with lack of respect. Some seem to think a "troll" is someone who disagrees with the majority opinion...loudly. Just because they annoy you and you disagree does not mean they are "trolling." I think many get confused by someone that has an unpopular opinion versus some bored 13 year old that comes on a board just to rile people up for fun. There is an ignore button if you don't feel like wasting your own time refusing to agree to disagree.
The second thing is it makes me really sad to see so many people thinking that the solution to the behavior of companies like Fotolia is to hide and censor themselves rather than deciding to work with better partners or pushing for a change in policy. There seems to be a ton of complaining about bad policies but when people refuse to fight back what change can be expected?
I also see a people that feel comfortable behind anonymous user names sometimes making personal attacks that they wouldn't consider if they were being held responsible by being identified. I've often taken breaks from reading MSG after being turned off by overly passionate mob mentality that can up with certain subjects. Maybe the conversations would be kept more civil if there was more accountability.
Some of the more civilized forums and communities I frequent are the ones where people use names or at least links to their work and have open discussions that tend to remain more civil. Then I look at things like Youtube comments and see anonymity at work. I lean toward humanizing things as much as possible. I like the idea of a name and initial, maybe just that is enough to remind us that there is a person behind that opinion and you can express yours without insults.
Very nicely summarized.
I am surprised at how close the voting is. Interesting to say the least....
Lots of great comments btw.
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
You are missing the point completely.
I am? Oh gosh, maybe you can provide me with the point you think I'm missing. Do go on.
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
You are missing the point completely.
I am? Oh gosh, maybe you can provide me with the point you think I'm missing. Do go on.
If you are such a forum guru you would have noticed I deleted my comment.
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
Hope you will forgive me if I don't take you at your word!
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/msg112217/#msg112217 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/msg112217/#msg112217)
Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them.My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin
-
Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them.My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin
He was banned for breaking the agreement. If you break a contract and announce you've broken it that is different than being banned for stating an opinion. I'm not saying it's never happened just pointing out that this specific case wasn't over an opinion but an action. For accuracy.
-
Privacy and civil liberties are constantly under threat from people saying "what do you have to hide"? When you hear that phrase, an alarm should sound.
One of the big problems with democracy is that bad stuff - things that are wrong on first principles - can sometimes be enacted with a bare majority. The 60% can unduly restrict the rights of the 40%; or confiscate their property. The fact that something is desired by 51% doesn't make it right; there are objective issues of ethics and fairness. To some extent that's why we have a judicial branch of government.
This problem is called the "tyranny of the majority".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
-
He was banned for breaking the agreement. If you break a contract and announce you've broken it that is different than being banned for stating an opinion. I'm not saying it's never happened just pointing out that this specific case wasn't over an opinion but an action. For accuracy.
Amanda, do you know the context of this?
At that time, if I remember correctly, Laurin said he had asked his friend who was an exclusive to upload one of his images which was initially rejected, so as to prove that the exclusives got preferential treatment. He was bragging about it here.
-
I remember the discussion at the time, I was just pointing out that he didn't get banned for saying he thought inspections were unfair but that he actually did something to try to prove it and then told people about it. So action vs opinion.
I'm not taking sides or judging what happened there but we should be careful not to represent it as a case where someone got banned for something they wrote, since a lot of people worried about using names are partially basing it on fear of being banned for negative opinions. Hope that clarifies a bit.
-
A few common themes here:
The "anti" folks are great at adding minuses
Nobody knows who is giving the minuses so why would that make any difference if people are anonymous or not?
-
I remember the discussion at the time, I was just pointing out that he didn't get banned for saying he thought inspections were unfair but that he actually did something to try to prove it and then told people about it. So action vs opinion.
I'm not taking sides or judging what happened there but we should be careful not to represent it as a case where someone got banned for something they wrote, since a lot of people worried about using names are partially basing it on fear of being banned for negative opinions. Hope that clarifies a bit.
I don't think there is any denying that IS read what Laurin wrote here and took action based on his MSG comments. No one including LR is disputing that those actions broke the rules.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/msg112217/#msg112217 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/msg112217/#msg112217)
Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them. My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
Soooo ... why did Sean have his account terminated, for example? You can't tell me it was because of his involvement with Stocksy, the supposed reason given at the time, being as lots of other IS contributors are openly active with Stocksy. Why was Sean, the #4 contributor on Istock's sales (and generally a massive cheerleader on Istock's behalf), picked upon? The only logical conclusion was his forum activity either here, there or wherever.
-
Why should it be full black or white matter , why cant part of the forum or some topics or some voting , whatever, require confirmed identities and leave the rest the same ?
Personally I have nothing against writing under my full name but I respect those who don't want to do it.
Perhaps the one who opens a topic can decide if it will be confirm identity seen only or all are welcomed to participate.
Just a thought
-
I was also given a taste of what a 'real identities' forum is like, and I like it and wondered that that would be here.
It may not be the same here, people have different interests that aren't compatible. Bruce and Stocksy want to bash all the microstock sites and photographers to gain some part of the market, I don't think that will be reconciled by getting rid of anonymity.
See, that's the kind of thing it's fun to hide behind an anonymous account and say :)
-
Hey guys!
I'm a "reader" for most part, than an active "writer" of MSG and all I can say is that when everything is gone, the money, youth, jobs, carriers, etc... all you are left with is you name! All you are leaving to this world is your name. And everything you do in this world, you should do with your first and last name beside it! Otherwise, don't do it! And I know I'll remember a few names that I came across over the years reading forums all around the web and working in microstock business.
Some I'll remember by not knowing the right spelling and some for writing smart and useful stuff. Also, over the years, I was upset that only Lobo (Pieman) didn't reveal his identity at IS and after a while I found out his real name and also got his photo on my comp (however strange that may sound :))
But it's much easier to speak to someone when you know they are "This and That" person living in this and that country, having long, short or whatever family history... It's just more personal and more civil. It's more "real".
And also, many times, I'm not believing in many things that people I know in person are saying they did or are doing (stupid sentence) and certainly I ain't going to believe in many anonymous advice's given here to some people seeking for advice. It's ok that there is a group of people that know each others and have pseudonyms and stuff and over the years, somehow you get to know who is who but it's always harder to engage in any kind of discussion when someone on the other end is cursing, trolling, telling people they don't know s@#$t while the people telling them that are "pro's and they got the world under them"... It's easier and more civil with real persons.
If you (anyone that can't show something they did/are doing, portfolio, skill, anything that would classified them as pro's or beginners) are trying to explain something, under pseudonym, myself, or for that matter, anyone else with mind of their own, wouldn't believe a word you are saying and there goes the topic - off topic! Calling names, fighting etc.
With my real name, I'm more careful what I'm saying and if I'm wrong with anything I'm gonna sooo apologize cause I'm just like that in "real life"... there is no trolling or continuing fighting etc... You stick with yourself.
You are what you are! Your name is all you are left with. Well, at least in my case. Everything will pass. This will pass. Good and bad will pass and all you left is your name. Will it be clear and shiny or dirty and muddy, it's up to you!
Whatever you do, you should take responsibility for you actions as anyone saying anything in the past - did. Got a ban? Deleted account? Choose your words wisely and the chat would become much more civil. Also, if you are backing something up, you should know the consequences involved or possible reaction from anyone involved in your comments. People, agencies, groups, anyone...
Except, off course, if you change your name legally. Than you're off the hook and you can do anything :))) Joke :)
-
...Whatever you do, you should take responsibility for you actions as anyone saying anything in the past - did. Got a ban? Deleted account? Choose your words wisely and the chat would become much more civil. Also, if you are backing something up, you should know the consequences involved or possible reaction from anyone involved in your comments. People, agencies, groups, anyone...
I think you're making some assumptions here that aren't warranted. People in some cases were not being rude or choosing their words rashly - it was two groups (contributors and agencies) facing off over unilateral power grabs by an agency. As I read what you've written, it suggests that the banned contributors deserved what they got.
I don't believe I have ever conducted myself online in a way that I wouldn't in person. I'm generally very polite although I have upset agencies by pointing out - civilly - the unfairness in what they have done/are doing. It was something of a shock to have Fotolia threaten to delete my account just for trying to stand up for ourselves as contributors. Knowing what I now know about most of the agencies, I realize that I'm swimming in a shark infested sea where ethics, fairness and long term thinking are in dangerously short supply.
It's all very well saying "this will pass" but if I were feeding my family with my stock income (I'm not; it's part time and a supplement), a lot of bad things could happen if agencies did to others what Getty did to Sean Locke (which was petty, vindictive and wholly targeted at intimidating other contributors, IMO).
I'd prefer a setting in which anonymity wasn't needed, but that's not the case.
I'll ignore the trolls and you ignore anyone who's anonymous. No need for making a huge deal out of this.
-
I was also given a taste of what a 'real identities' forum is like, and I like it and wondered that that would be here.
It may not be the same here, people have different interests that aren't compatible. Bruce and Stocksy want to bash all the microstock sites and photographers to gain some part of the market, I don't think that will be reconciled by getting rid of anonymity.
See, that's the kind of thing it's fun to hide behind an anonymous account and say :)
What would change if you knew my name, could see my portfolio, or saw how much I was making? This is what I believe Stocksy's marketing plan is based on the things I've heard from Bruce http://blog.microstockgroup.com/bruce-livingstone-interview/ (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/bruce-livingstone-interview/) especially at the beginning of the interview. Me being anonymous doesn't change what he said. Maybe if I wasn't anonymous you could insult my portfolio?
-
Obviously, people split into 2 groups. One group is fine with anonymity. The other group is made uncomfortable by it, and describes it with derogatory terms, like "hiding".
There's a simple solution: a checkbox labelled "only show me posts from members with public identities". That way, people in my group can see all the posts, from everyone; and people in the other group can have what they seem to want: a discussion that only includes people like themselves. I guess it's a "values" thing.
-
We don't even need a checkbox: The people that don't want to see posts by anonymous members can just hide all posts from them. That's what I do with trolls when they get really annoying.
-
The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide. Leaf might have to flip a coin to determine the winner lol!
Okay, let's just pretend that we try it and if we don't like it after only 30 day another poll can be taken which will give the power to decide - seems fair to me. Nothing major can happen in 30 days that would ruin this site forever. The old saying- "Nothing ventured - nothing gained" applies here...
-
I don't get it....why try and fix something that's not broken. If this goes ahead it could the death knell of this forum.
-
The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide. Leaf might have to flip a coin to determine the winner lol!
Okay, let's just pretend that we try it and if we don't like it after only 30 day another poll can be taken which will give the power to decide - seems fair to me. Nothing major can happen in 30 days that would ruin this site forever. The old saying- "Nothing ventured - nothing gained" applies here...
I will assume that you will NOT be excluded during the next 30 days and that you have no problem with the fact that many of us will be!
-
I don't get it....why try and fix something that's not broken. If this goes ahead it could the death knell of this forum.
It seems that maybe leaf does think its broken and would like to try something different.
-
I don't get it....why try and fix something that's not broken. If this goes ahead it could the death knell of this forum.
It seems that maybe leaf does think its broken and would like to try something different.
The sanitisation of the forum would be terminal in my view....
-
I've been sitting here most of the afternoon, drinking my screwdrivers and working my way through 8 pages of comments. A few of you here know who I am, but I suspect most do not. I was raised at a time in history when personal information was considered just that ... personal. It was never, ever to be published to anyone who did not have an imminent reason to know. That was ingrained in me and I still believe in it. It's a cultural thing.
That said, I have no problem letting Tyler know my full name and have a link to one or more of my portfolios. I seem to recall in a previous forum that something like this was suggested, that Tyler have this information and he alone would make the decision to admit an applicant to MSG. The downside to this, of course, is that it would bury Tyler up to his eyeballs in work ... something he needs like a bad case of social disease. ;D Never-the-less, I would have no problem with a one-time fee to cover this added work on his part. It only makes sense that if someone is commenting on some issue or another, he/she be qualified to make those comments. Perhaps some sort of icon could be added to the individual's forum name to indicate they had been vetted.
The second part of this would be swift action against anyone, trolls or other, who abuse the privilege, and it is a privilege, of posting here. Perhaps a two week time-out for a first offense and total banning for continued offenses after the first time. Strict, even draconian, measures are likely the only thing that will reign in those who purposely abuse their posting privileges.
-
...Whatever you do, you should take responsibility for you actions as anyone saying anything in the past - did. Got a ban? Deleted account? Choose your words wisely and the chat would become much more civil. Also, if you are backing something up, you should know the consequences involved or possible reaction from anyone involved in your comments. People, agencies, groups, anyone...
I think you're making some assumptions here that aren't warranted. People in some cases were not being rude or choosing their words rashly - it was two groups (contributors and agencies) facing off over unilateral power grabs by an agency. As I read what you've written, it suggests that the banned contributors deserved what they got.
I don't believe I have ever conducted myself online in a way that I wouldn't in person. I'm generally very polite although I have upset agencies by pointing out - civilly - the unfairness in what they have done/are doing. It was something of a shock to have Fotolia threaten to delete my account just for trying to stand up for ourselves as contributors. Knowing what I now know about most of the agencies, I realize that I'm swimming in a shark infested sea where ethics, fairness and long term thinking are in dangerously short supply.
It's all very well saying "this will pass" but if I were feeding my family with my stock income (I'm not; it's part time and a supplement), a lot of bad things could happen if agencies did to others what Getty did to Sean Locke (which was petty, vindictive and wholly targeted at intimidating other contributors, IMO).
I'd prefer a setting in which anonymity wasn't needed, but that's not the case.
I'll ignore the trolls and you ignore anyone who's anonymous. No need for making a huge deal out of this.
Agree with that. I don't know how that slipped my mind. Just got caught up reading last several posts about rude behavior, trolling etc...
Looking at it from that perspective, one can say that anonymity may be a solution for some folks...
-
I would say that a reading of this forum thread should make the advantages of allowing anonymity obvious already. We have, so far, examples of Sean Locke, JoAnn Snover, Bobby Deal, and Laurin Rinder all having been directly penalized by various agencies as a result of things they've said or admitted to in these forums.
We also have a growing list of valuable "anonymous" contributors who will cease to participate at all if they are forced to go public.
Even though I won't be directly affected, as I am already public, I expect we will all be affected by the chill this is going to put over the open exchange of ideas and information. If I wanted sanitized pablum I would still be frequenting the agency forums.
I'm not sure that anonymity would have prevented these things from happening. Most of the people on here aren't really all that anonymous. If an agency is out for your blood because of something you did or are doing, they are probably going to find you and punish you regardless.
-
The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide.
Okay, I know it's totally OT, but I live in Florida, and I voted here in that election. Since it was personal for me, let me clarify something for you. THE RECOUNT DIDN'T HAPPEN. It was blocked by the US Supreme Court. So no, a recount didn't decide the election. To this day nobody knows for sure what that recount would have shown because it wasn't allowed to be completed.
-
I think anonymity is the weapon of choice for anyone who is willing to be aggressive, and even abusive with forum posts. I think Tyler made a perfectly reasonable compromise; that those wishing to remain anonymous can do so, but should have to pay a nominal fee. simply as a small administrative hurdle to reduce multiple accounts and abusive posters. it would make this forum more informative in my opinion. otherwise, the information is often buried in the bickering and escalation. there is a lot of great stuff here, but it's also a circus
-
Confirm identies? Ever notice how you never see Clark Kent and cthoman in the same room at the same time?
-
I think anonymity is the weapon of choice for anyone who is willing to be aggressive, and even abusive with forum posts. I think Tyler made a perfectly reasonable compromise; that those wishing to remain anonymous can do so, but should have to pay a nominal fee. simply as a small administrative hurdle to reduce multiple accounts and abusive posters. it would make this forum more informative in my opinion. otherwise, the information is often buried in the bickering and escalation. there is a lot of great stuff here, but it's also a circus
Oh Stacey! you have changed since joining Stocksy. You have becoame too clean. :) :)
-
The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide.
Okay, I know it's totally OT, but I live in Florida, and I voted here in that election. Since it was personal for me, let me clarify something for you. THE RECOUNT DIDN'T HAPPEN. It was blocked by the US Supreme Court. So no, a recount didn't decide the election. To this day nobody knows for sure what that recount would have shown because it wasn't allowed to be completed.
Another OT, but I think relevant to this discussion about trolls and general unpleasantness:-
I'd love to know why someone gave Lisa a -1 for this statement of fact.
Is the person brave enough to explain? Thanks!
-
The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide.
Okay, I know it's totally OT, but I live in Florida, and I voted here in that election. Since it was personal for me, let me clarify something for you. THE RECOUNT DIDN'T HAPPEN. It was blocked by the US Supreme Court. So no, a recount didn't decide the election. To this day nobody knows for sure what that recount would have shown because it wasn't allowed to be completed.
Another OT, but I think relevant to this discussion about trolls and general unpleasantness:-
I'd love to know why someone gave Lisa a -1 for this statement of fact.
Is the person brave enough to explain? Thanks!
Actually 2 minuses and a plus.
.. I really need to work on the mod to show how many +'s and how many -'s. I'm just worried how much of a mess it will be to get working that i don't dare start.
-
Good one Leo! :)
-
Sure there are aggressive trolls here, but I would say that the majority of those who post anonymously are not aggressive or abusive and to label them as such is not productive or fair.
In fact I can remember a certain non anonymous poster at msg frequently changing their username to anonymous pseudo's, so that they could take angry swipes as their sales started to slide and frustration rose at istock.
In my opinion sites have the most to gain from msg censorship. Historically being harsh and aggressive is certainly not exclusive to anonymous posters here, yet they are being singled out and excluded.
-
I think anonymity is the weapon of choice for anyone who is willing to be aggressive, and even abusive with forum posts. I think Tyler made a perfectly reasonable compromise; that those wishing to remain anonymous can do so, but should have to pay a nominal fee. simply as a small administrative hurdle to reduce multiple accounts and abusive posters. it would make this forum more informative in my opinion. otherwise, the information is often buried in the bickering and escalation. there is a lot of great stuff here, but it's also a circus
Oh Stacey! you have changed since joining Stocksy. You have becoame too clean. :) :)
believe you should look at yourself first, actually you will never change (lost case) but curiously you always manage to get back again and again to this forum while bashing it as much as you can on SS, now pack and leave lagereek
-
Confirm identies? Ever notice how you never see Clark Kent and cthoman in the same room at the same time?
Brilliant! like it. ;D
-
The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide. Leaf might have to flip a coin to determine the winner lol!
Okay, let's just pretend that we try it and if we don't like it after only 30 day another poll can be taken which will give the power to decide - seems fair to me. Nothing major can happen in 30 days that would ruin this site forever. The old saying- "Nothing ventured - nothing gained" applies here...
I suggested the exact same thing and got voted down, you get voted up. Its a fickle place, shows that the crowd is definitely divided
-
I'm not sure that anonymity would have prevented these things from happening. Most of the people on here aren't really all that anonymous. If an agency is out for your blood because of something you did or are doing, they are probably going to find you and punish you regardless.
I think the difference is that they can't be 100% who it is most of the time and don't think that they would go banning anybody unless they were totally sure that they have the right person.
-
I'm wondering if many people here have a anonymous and a named account. If so by doing this it might actually increase the percentage of anonymous accounts if they decide to keep that one and ditch the named account.
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
1) I don't believe that the things Sean said/posted had nothing to do with his banning - OK, he said them on the iStock forums as well as here, so maybe it was the comments on your forum rather than this one that caught the eye of whoever decided to dump him, but I doubt if the outcome would have been different if he had only been posting here.
Why do I believe that? Well, it wasn't the quality of his photography that got him dumped. He hadn't actually submitted anything to Stocksy - and it seems unlikely that he ever would have done given the cost of abandoning exclusivity. What he did that made him different was the way he alerted people to what was going on at iStock and the greasemonkey scripts he wrote.
2) I do believe that dumping Sean was quite deliberately intended to send a "nobody is safe" message throughout the stock community. Otherwise, why not talk to him about his scripts and Stocksy and how he needed to get more "on board" with company thinking? According to his account of the events there was never any intention to have a proper discussion.
3) Having iStock ban-hammer wielder "Thor" Lobo tell us that it is a really good idea to remove anonymity because nobody will get hurt is like hearing the wolf (pun intended) tell the lambs that they don't need to hide inside a guarded enclosure because they won't be at any risk if they roam around in the woods.
The mere fact that Lobo thinks its worth the trouble of advising Leaf (on a chummy moderator to moderator basis) that dumping anonymity would be a good idea should set alarm bells ringing.
And you know what? I already feel ever so slightly nervous about posting this, because I am clearly taking a position that opposes the wishes of the iStock spokesman .
-
I don't think first name last initial and a portfolio link is at all unreasonable.
.....
The second thing is it makes me really sad to see so many people thinking that the solution to the behavior of companies like Fotolia is to hide and censor themselves rather than deciding to work with better partners or pushing for a change in policy. There seems to be a ton of complaining about bad policies but when people refuse to fight back what change can be expected?
Amanda, what is the point of just putting last initials (I know it is Tyler's idea, not yours)? How hard do you think it would be for the agencies to identify Sean L, Lisa Y, JoAnn S, Paul C etc? You might just as well insist on full names.
I'm at a loss to know what you would do to change Fotolia's policies. Criticising them is frowned on and likely to get you thrown out, let alone trying to organise some sort of concerted action against them. I dumped Fotolia, not because I thought their policies were unfair, but because I concluded that they had tried to cheat me out of my earnings. I will dump any agency if I feel that I can no longer trust it to behave honestly - after all, there is a great deal of trust involved in believing that agencies are recording all the transactions - but I am unlikely to dump them for any other reason.
I stopped supplying iStock for five months after the Google Drive deal, I stopped supplying 123 for a few months over the commission cut, I'm rather suspicious about what Shutterstock is doing with BigStock subscriptions, Dreamstime's payment structure has become almost impossibly complicated and it has also cut commission percentages (Oh and Alamy cut commissions, too). I'm not on Envato or Pond 5.
So should I stop supplying Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Alamy and Bigstock, too? That will leave me with DepositPhotos as my top earner, followed by Canstock and Scanstock. Since this is my main source of income, that would make life rather difficult.
I would be grateful if you would tell me how I can fight back rather than complaining, while continuing to earn my living.
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
1) I don't believe that the things Sean said/posted had nothing to do with his banning - OK, he said them on the iStock forums as well as here, so maybe it was the comments on your forum rather than this one that caught the eye of whoever decided to dump him, but I doubt if the outcome would have been different if he had only been posting here.
Why do I believe that? Well, it wasn't the quality of his photography that got him dumped. He hadn't actually submitted anything to Stocksy - and it seems unlikely that he ever would have done given the cost of abandoning exclusivity. What he did that made him different was the way he alerted people to what was going on at iStock and the greasemonkey scripts he wrote.
2) I do believe that dumping Sean was quite deliberately intended to send a "nobody is safe" message throughout the stock community. Otherwise, why not talk to him about his scripts and Stocksy and how he needed to get more "on board" with company thinking? According to his account of the events there was never any intention to have a proper discussion.
3) Having iStock ban-hammer wielder "Thor" Lobo tell us that it is a really good idea to remove anonymity because nobody will get hurt is like hearing the wolf (pun intended) tell the lambs that they don't need to hide inside a guarded enclosure because they won't be at any risk if they roam around in the woods.
The mere fact that Lobo thinks its worth the trouble of advising Leaf (on a chummy moderator to moderator basis) that dumping anonymity would be a good idea should set alarm bells ringing.
And you know what? I already feel ever so slightly nervous about posting this, because I am clearly taking a position that opposes the wishes of the iStock spokesman .
Frankly the thought has crossed my mind that the sites might have been pushing for this behind the scenes, that is pure conjecture of course.
-
Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.
Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.
Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.
1) I don't believe that the things Sean said/posted had nothing to do with his banning - OK, he said them on the iStock forums as well as here, so maybe it was the comments on your forum rather than this one that caught the eye of whoever decided to dump him, but I doubt if the outcome would have been different if he had only been posting here.
Why do I believe that? Well, it wasn't the quality of his photography that got him dumped. He hadn't actually submitted anything to Stocksy - and it seems unlikely that he ever would have done given the cost of abandoning exclusivity. What he did that made him different was the way he alerted people to what was going on at iStock and the greasemonkey scripts he wrote.
2) I do believe that dumping Sean was quite deliberately intended to send a "nobody is safe" message throughout the stock community. Otherwise, why not talk to him about his scripts and Stocksy and how he needed to get more "on board" with company thinking? According to his account of the events there was never any intention to have a proper discussion.
3) Having iStock ban-hammer wielder "Thor" Lobo tell us that it is a really good idea to remove anonymity because nobody will get hurt is like hearing the wolf (pun intended) tell the lambs that they don't need to hide inside a guarded enclosure because they won't be at any risk if they roam around in the woods.
The mere fact that Lobo thinks its worth the trouble of advising Leaf (on a chummy moderator to moderator basis) that dumping anonymity would be a good idea should set alarm bells ringing.
And you know what? I already feel ever so slightly nervous about posting this, because I am clearly taking a position that opposes the wishes of the iStock spokesman .
Frankly the thought has crossed my mind that the sites might have been pushing for this behind the scenes, that is pure conjecture of course.
Only one site has ever expressed their wish for exposed identities on the forum, and that was 3 years ago. When I said it wasn't going to happen they said they'd stop visiting the forum. Whether they have or haven't I don't know but it didn't really matter.
-
@leaf:
Maybe you should make it rock hard clear that there is a difference between "one's real name being known" at your forum and "showing that real name in the forum".
Maybe it can be compared to some microstock agencies: They require you upload some kind of picture ID, but publicly you can choose a pseudonym and nobody else sees your ID.
Maybe there are even internet services that act as a broker so even you don't know their ID, though a company can guarantee you the person is real and has only one account.
-
Funny this. It is dead easy finding out who is hiding behind a pseudo. There is even a so called unauthorized " service" that provides that. Finding out for yourself is almost just as easy, as long as you know how.
I mean if its possible to hack your way into the Pentagon, finding out a pseudo is like a walk in the park.
If an agency really wants to find out who is behind a certain pseudo. They can.
I thought this was common knowledge by now.
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
-
Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.
exactly
so where's this army of evil trolls hiding behind multiple accounts ?
by all means i'm the only official and long standing troll here.
if you want to go the way of the Alamy forum i'm afraid this forum will quickly die of boredom and lose at least 50% of the active users but feel free to try it out.
as for the right to anonymity, well there would be not even need to discuss it ... the whole idea of privacy is a lost cause with the many Facebook, Twitter, etc ... forums are the last bastions of privacy.
-
Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.
He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.
I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
-
Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.
exactly
so where's this army of evil trolls hiding behind multiple accounts ?
by all means i'm the only official and long standing troll here.
if you want to go the way of the Alamy forum i'm afraid this forum will quickly die of boredom and lose at least 50% of the active users but feel free to try it out.
as for the right to anonymity, well there would be not even need to discuss it ... the whole idea of privacy is a lost cause with the many Facebook, Twitter, etc ... forums are the last bastions of privacy.
I dont use my real name on Facebook either, and I have 5 extra accounts on facebook with photos, real fake friends, and fake personal info to use whenever I need to. People use their real name on Facebook because they want to be found, not because they want to hide for whatever reason. Twitter? People use all kinds of fake names there. Some people use their real name for a reason there as well. Forums are a different type of social media and used for different purposes.
-
Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.
He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.
I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?
I am not paying 60 dollars a year to be anonymous. Thats a whole year of DP earnings, come on now.
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
game set and match ! ;D
-
Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.
He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.
I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?
I am not paying 60 dollars a year to be anonymous. Thats a whole year of DP earnings, come on now.
In your case we make it 150, pounds sterling. Hows that grabbing you? ;D ;D ;D
-
Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.
He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.
I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?
I am not paying 60 dollars a year to be anonymous. Thats a whole year of DP earnings, come on now.
In your case we make it 150, pounds sterling. Hows that grabbing you? ;D ;D ;D
Ai, thats DP and CanStockPhoto combined... you are killing me here ! :)
-
Confirm identies? Ever notice how you never see Clark Kent and cthoman in the same room at the same time?
Umm... err... nothing to see here.
-
i choose to remain anonymous for professional reasons - non of which needs to be justified on this forum. there is enough censorship going on at the many forums within the agencies, and this place is a breath of fresh air that one can express their own opinions/views regardless of the persuasion without having the hammer come down on them.
i would like to think with all the various views/opinions and crazy speculations that appear here, one would be able to form their own conclusions based on all of it and take that information where they will.
not all of us want to be "indies", not all of us deify sean, not all of us love bruce and stocksy, not all of us buy into the SS subscription model, not all of us have started our careers with the easy way of microstock and digital.
i think regardless of where you are in your game of stock photography this should be an open platform for all levels of experience, and in one form or another we all bring something to the table for discussion.
if i had to show my port, or my real name, or pay, i'd be outta here now.
-
For me it's Fredmiranda.com forums, where real people, real professionals and honest discussions are common. Seems fear of retribution from agencies and viewers isn't a problem there? Sportsshooter.com is all professionals and all real names. People need to submit a request, proof of professionalism and be sponsored to be a member there. Then they charge by the year also.
If this forum is to be taken seriously, and as professional information, it should be populated by real people.
I'm not using my real name here, but if you click, you see who I am and my website. It's not a secret, just not searchable by name. That's more than enough for me to feel people won't be coming across it by accident. I used my real name when I signed up for Microstock sites, might have changed some, but Alamy and IS and SS are all relatively transparent about what my real name is.
I'd say $10 a year would be more than enough for Leaf to discourage trolls with Multiple IDs. It's not a point for profit and if it's that important and people are serious, $10 a year is hardly a big deal? It would pay back for his time spent managing the site and IDs and keep in mind, someone must moderate all this. Less foolishness and he has less work watching the forums.
This thread was mostly sparked from my participation in that other forum which seems so much more .. well, .. professional.
What other forum may I ask?
-
For me it's Fredmiranda.com forums, where real people, real professionals and honest discussions are common. Seems fear of retribution from agencies and viewers isn't a problem there? Sportsshooter.com is all professionals and all real names. People need to submit a request, proof of professionalism and be sponsored to be a member there. Then they charge by the year also.
If this forum is to be taken seriously, and as professional information, it should be populated by real people.
LightStalkers is another serious pro forum and the reason they require you to use your real name + link to portfolio is because half of the forum is about people hiring photographers/stringers for assignments.
no money asked over there but you can only join by invitation.
-
For me it's Fredmiranda.com forums, where real people, real professionals and honest discussions are common.
I just went to the Fredmiranda.com forums to find out what you mean and it seems to be real people,really showing of real pictures while other real people say "wow, that's a nice picture".
I can't for the life of me see what the connection is between a "show off my pictures" forum and a forum for the discussion of the business practices of microstock companies and other aspects of selling stock.
-
For me it's Fredmiranda.com forums, where real people, real professionals and honest discussions are common.
I just went to the Fredmiranda.com forums to find out what you mean and it seems to be real people,really showing of real pictures while other real people say "wow, that's a nice picture".
I can't for the life of me see what the connection is between a "show off my pictures" forum and a forum for the discussion of the business practices of microstock companies and other aspects of selling stock.
I just checked, first thread I opened had people called corndog and trenchmonkey talking to each other. ;D
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.
You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.
Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.
-
Pieman, is Lobo your real name?
-
Pieman, is Lobo your real name?
careful! coz he is right behind you ;D
(istock profile then you will understand!)
-
Pieman, is Lobo your real name?
Nope Pieman is, It's Simon Metta Pieman. LOL ;)
Funny how the point of real names is lost in nit picking. ID names on FM forums are the same as here and everywhere else, just Pseudonyms for Real People. The idea isn't that everyone has to use their real name, just that a real identity is connected to the account. Amazing how someone could miss that (like Semmick) and twist it into something it isn't?
Use me as an example. You know who I am, you know where to find me, you know my email, you know my website and without much thinking can find my SS and IS portfolio's. I'm a real person. Same with another thousand or so people here.
Now take some other person, one who had six IDs and was finally banned. Is that what makes the forum content more valuable and honest information for people who care about the business and market? Or is it just a waste of time with some adult child, disrupting and attacking others, for their own self amusement. Which contributes nothing to the site integrity or knowledge base.
Yes to the "show me your photo" pat me on the head bunch. Seems very popular on some microstock forum that's inhabited by troubled trolls as well. Yes, means, yes I agree it's not very useful and I don't participate in the ego stroking from either perspective. I don't criticise photos in the forums, except maybe to mock something now and then.
Tit for tat, fair game, but the little poking critics would take your best seller and explain why it's all wrong and never could be accepted or sell, because if it's close cropped it's too close and if you give it space, it needs to be cropped closer. (as an example) Or some mythical depth of focus, perspective, lens distortion, lighting or it breaks the rule of thirds. The contrast is too high or lacks definition.
Doesn't matter, everything is always, wrong. So asking for compliments is about as useful as asking for constructive criticism. (Some Times the critiques are useful for beginners try to get accepted at IS or SS)
Using Sean as the poster boy for, we must be secret is absurd. There's only one agency that has threatened and actually closed accounts for what people write on OTHER microstock forums. It's not IS or SS. (or DT or 123, or DP or P5 or BS...) There are many people here who don't live in fear and are not lap dogs for the agencies. If the whole claim that they will close our accounts is true, how about the thousand people who don't use an anonymous ID here?
If there's something honestly wrong, we should be able to speak out and should also stand behind what we write. Not hide behind a collection of anonymous unknown source pseudonyms. For the sake of credibility, attribution and the integrity of the forum, real people behind the accounts makes more sense.
-
Pieman, is Lobo your real name?
Nope Pieman is, It's Simon Metta Pieman. LOL ;)
Funny how the point of real names is lost in nit picking. ID names on FM forums are the same as here and everywhere else, just Pseudonyms for Real People. The idea isn't that everyone has to use their real name, just that a real identity is connected to the account. Amazing how someone could miss that (like Semmick) and twist it into something it isn't?
Use me as an example. You know who I am, you know where to find me, you know my email, you know my website and without much thinking can find my SS and IS portfolio's. I'm a real person. Same with another thousand or so people here.
Now take some other person, one who had six IDs and was finally banned. Is that what makes the forum content more valuable and honest information for people who care about the business and market? Or is it just a waste of time with some adult child, disrupting and attacking others, for their own self amusement. Which contributes nothing to the site integrity or knowledge base.
Yes to the "show me your photo" pat me on the head bunch. Seems very popular on some microstock forum that's inhabited by troubled trolls as well. Yes, means, yes I agree it's not very useful and I don't participate in the ego stroking from either perspective. I don't criticise photos in the forums, except maybe to mock something now and then.
Tit for tat, fair game, but the little poking critics would take your best seller and explain why it's all wrong and never could be accepted or sell, because if it's close cropped it's too close and if you give it space, it needs to be cropped closer. (as an example) Or some mythical depth of focus, perspective, lens distortion, lighting or it breaks the rule of thirds. The contrast is too high or lacks definition.
Doesn't matter, everything is always, wrong. So asking for compliments is about as useful as asking for constructive criticism. (Some Times the critiques are useful for beginners try to get accepted at IS or SS)
Using Sean as the poster boy for, we must be secret is absurd. There's only one agency that has threatened and actually closed accounts for what people write on OTHER microstock forums. It's not IS or SS. (or DT or 123, or DP or P5 or BS...) There are many people here who don't live in fear and are not lap dogs for the agencies. If the whole claim that they will close our accounts is true, how about the thousand people who don't use an anonymous ID here?
If there's something honestly wrong, we should be able to speak out and should also stand behind what we write. Not hide behind a collection of anonymous unknown source pseudonyms. For the sake of credibility, attribution and the integrity of the forum, real people behind the accounts makes more sense.
That only addresses part of the issue for some of us who are anonymous. People can post that they are having a BME without worrying that the first thing everyone who reads the post is going to do is go straight to their portfolio to see what they are doing right and then take as many ideas as they can. People keep saying how nobody posts good news in the Istock monthly sales thread, my guess is that's because they know that is exactly what will happen. Even the monthly sales thread here seems to be much much shorter than it used to be.
-
Pete, you are ignoring the PERCEPTION of risk. That is all that is required to stop people posting potentially useful information here.
You admit there is one site that closed people's accounts for what they wrote here - which suggests you would find it acceptable for that site to be beyond criticism.
The Sean issue is not an absurd example. He did something iS didn't like, so they booted him. It was a complete shift in their behaviour. Who knows what the next policy shift might be - especially if they see that Fotolia's threats work because MSG insists on identities being revealed and suddenly Fot escapes criticism.
I would rather have useful information posted along with any trolling and flaming than have no trolling, no flaming and no useful information.
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.
You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.
Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.
Leaf hasn't entered into a contract with me to sell my images, only to unilaterally change that contract because it was "unsustainable". As for being banned, it's of no consequence and did not enter into the decision to leave IS. The point is that you come here and try to turn this into one of your " let's make a joke about pie and you'll do what I say " threads, and I don't buy it. If anything, your posts reinforce Leaf's point, since by knowing who you are we are well aware of your complete lack of credibility.
Maybe I should change my vote...
-
That only addresses part of the issue for some of us who are anonymous. People can post that they are having a BME without worrying that the first thing everyone who reads the post is going to do is go straight to their portfolio to see what they are doing right and then take as many ideas as they can.
Or, people might go to the port and discover that the poster is probably guilty of a certain degree of exaggeration. If I wanted to copycat I’d look at most popular, best selling etc not follow up someone trying to big himself up for whatever reason.
People keep saying how nobody posts good news in the Istock monthly sales thread, my guess is that's because they know that is exactly what will happen. Even the monthly sales thread here seems to be much much shorter than it used to be.
Alternative theory – maybe not so much good news there??
-
That only addresses part of the issue for some of us who are anonymous. People can post that they are having a BME without worrying that the first thing everyone who reads the post is going to do is go straight to their portfolio to see what they are doing right and then take as many ideas as they can.
Or, people might go to the port and discover that the poster is probably guilty of a certain degree of exaggeration. If I wanted to copycat I’d look at most popular, best selling etc not follow up someone trying to big himself up for whatever reason.
People keep saying how nobody posts good news in the Istock monthly sales thread, my guess is that's because they know that is exactly what will happen. Even the monthly sales thread here seems to be much much shorter than it used to be.
Alternative theory – maybe not so much good news there??
1. It's not just the most popular images that people copy and everyone already knows what those are, it's the more niche subjects that I don't want people copying from my portfolio (see what happened to the handshake shot after I posted that it sold a couple times, now everyone has a picture of one).
2. Maybe not so much good news, but I know I don't post on the Istock forum for the reason I stated above even though sometimes I have good news.
-
I still don't 'get' why the people who are offended by anonymity don't just use the Ignore option on those posters. Nor do I understand why it's so important that this forum Be Taken Seriously. What exactly is the benefit to that?
As other posters have pointed out, there are already other forums for Serious Professionals. Does every forum have to be a copy? If so, Leaf could just forward this domain to fredmiranda.com.
It seems to me that a couple of Serious Professionals have recently learned a hard lesson about one of the many possible reasons for anonymity. If they'd like the rest of us to now take the same cold shower... um, no thanks.
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.
You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.
Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.
I seriously doubt that...
-
I don't have time to read all 10 pages but I support what Leaf is proposing. Tayler, please go ahead and implement this - and if some people rather not post than stand behind their own words, good riddance.
-
I don't have time to read all 10 pages but I support what Leaf is proposing. Tayler, please go ahead and implement this - and if some people rather not post than stand behind their own words, good riddance.
Many of your friends or people who you respect here are anonymous. Why would you say good riddance to them?
-
Or, people might go to the port and discover that the poster is probably guilty of a certain degree of exaggeration. If I wanted to copycat I’d look at most popular, best selling etc not follow up someone trying to big himself up for whatever reason.
Never quite understood the point of bigging yourself up if nobody knows who you are anyway
-
Or, people might go to the port and discover that the poster is probably guilty of a certain degree of exaggeration. If I wanted to copycat I’d look at most popular, best selling etc not follow up someone trying to big himself up for whatever reason.
Never quite understood the point of bigging yourself up if nobody knows who you are anyway
I don't either. There sure are a lot of Freudian Paradoxes on the internet.
-
.....see what happened to the handshake shot after I posted that it sold a couple times, now everyone has a picture of one....
Have to award a heart for that ;D
-
I just want also to say something now, because this is the forum with the most pluses I have ever seen!
OK, that was now a total off topic remark, so please add a few minuses here to get the balance back again (lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
(Oh yes, and I am saying this without hiding behind a fake pseudo) ;)
-
(Oh yes, and I am saying this without hiding behind a fake pseudo) ;)
My pseudo is as real as they get.
-
(Oh yes, and I am saying this without hiding behind a fake pseudo) ;)
My pseudo is as real as they get.
Ah, also the same as the one you use on the stock sites then? Good for you man, let's storm the fort!!!
-
I believe what tickstock is saying is that pseudos are never really fake, because it does exactly what it its meant for.
I think he is right.
-
I just want also to say something now, because this is the forum with the most pluses I have ever seen!
OK, that was now a total off topic remark, so please add a few minuses here to get the balance back again (lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
(Oh yes, and I am saying this without hiding behind a fake pseudo) ;)
I like your C is for Charl...thought I would add that to my avatar too, if you dont mind if i steal the idea. :)
-
I just want also to say something now, because this is the forum with the most pluses I have ever seen!
OK, that was now a total off topic remark, so please add a few minuses here to get the balance back again (lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
(Oh yes, and I am saying this without hiding behind a fake pseudo) ;)
I like your C is for Charl...thought I would add that to my avatar too, if you dont mind if i steal the idea. :)
You are welcome to say that your C is also for Charl ;D
-
The internet is not trustworthy. Millions of scammers, thieves and their highly developed bots are working full time all day everyday. And yes... they are smarter than me.... so I use my real name as little as possible. I just say no to facebook, twitter, etc.,. Agency monitoring and revenge is also real. I vote NO to forced use of real names and portfolio links.
-
I just want also to say something now, because this is the forum with the most pluses I have ever seen!
OK, that was now a total off topic remark, so please add a few minuses here to get the balance back again (lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
(Oh yes, and I am saying this without hiding behind a fake pseudo) ;)
I like your C is for Charl...thought I would add that to my avatar too, if you dont mind if i steal the idea. :)
You are welcome to say that your C is also for Charl ;D
LOL!
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.
You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.
Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.
Leaf hasn't entered into a contract with me to sell my images, only to unilaterally change that contract because it was "unsustainable". As for being banned, it's of no consequence and did not enter into the decision to leave IS. The point is that you come here and try to turn this into one of your " let's make a joke about pie and you'll do what I say " threads, and I don't buy it. If anything, your posts reinforce Leaf's point, since by knowing who you are we are well aware of your complete lack of credibility.
Maybe I should change my vote...
Let me add to this:
I was banned on the istockphoto forum because I criticized the google deal.
Lobo (pieman) did that, he pressed the button.
But so easy is it not, and there is such a thing as pride. There are buttons not to be played with but to be taken seriously.
Im not going to pay the monthly wages to an improfessional moderator in a foriegn country who wont listen and just presses buttons when he gets emotional unstable and thinks critisism is annoying.
So that push of the button cost the company.
I withdrew my port.
Then he can look around and see who else is going to pay his monthly wages.
-
Let me add to this:
I was banned on the istockphoto forum because I criticized the google deal.
Lobo (pieman) did that, he pressed the button.
But so easy is it not, and there is such a thing as pride. There are buttons not to be played with but to be taken seriously.
Im not going to pay the monthly wages to an improfessional moderator in a foriegn country who wont listen and just presses buttons when he gets emotional unstable and thinks critisism is annoying.
So that push of the button cost the company.
I withdrew my port.
Then he can look around and see who else is going to pay his monthly wages.
Didn't you actually get banned for being a boorish and repetitive oaf, over a sustained period and involving several different issues? I was actually somewhat surprised you lasted as long as you did. I thought Lobo had the patience of a saint in your case.
How are IS losing money on you withdrawing your port anyway? Do you imagine that you have an ardent following of eager buyers, that have since opened new accounts elsewhere, just to buy your sought-after work? Can't see that myself. I suspect that IS customers had plenty to choose from without even noticing that your stuff was missing. I very much doubt that Lobo has had to take a pay-cut as a direct result of your lost portfolio.
-
Let me add to this:
I was banned on the istockphoto forum because I criticized the google deal.
Lobo (pieman) did that, he pressed the button.
But so easy is it not, and there is such a thing as pride. There are buttons not to be played with but to be taken seriously.
Im not going to pay the monthly wages to an improfessional moderator in a foriegn country who wont listen and just presses buttons when he gets emotional unstable and thinks critisism is annoying.
So that push of the button cost the company.
I withdrew my port.
Then he can look around and see who else is going to pay his monthly wages.
Didn't you actually get banned for being a boorish and repetitive oaf, over a sustained period and involving several different issues? I was actually somewhat surprised you lasted as long as you did. I thought Lobo had the patience of a saint in your case.
How are IS losing money on you withdrawing your port anyway? Do you imagine that you have an ardent following of eager buyers, that have since opened new accounts elsewhere, just to buy your sought-after work? Can't see that myself. I suspect that IS customers had plenty to choose from without even noticing that your stuff was missing. I very much doubt that Lobo has had to take a pay-cut as a direct result of your lost portfolio.
Interesting... input.
No, I was not a boorish and repetitive oaf. I just didnt like 15%, and said it, and I didnt like the censorship, and said it. I didnt like the google deal, and I said it.
That could produce a few negative posts, that is right.
BTW... where do you stand in the anonymous/ non anonymous discussion?
And yes.. Customers have followed me. Not many, but some have. Thats enough for me.
-
Ugh. This idea makes me feel ill. I won't participate here if people can find out who I am. I don't post anything anywhere under my real name including Facebook and other social media because once that info is out there, its out there. Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but I worry about it.
If I had post under my real name, I also would never have pulled together the list of partners programs since there is no way to know how companies feel about having that info out there compiled for all to see. Since nobody else thought to do it, that list probably would never exist and we'd all be the worse for it.
I'm empathic to those who want to know who the person is behind the post, but ultimately what is said is by and large judged by the substance of the post rather then who the poster is, so that anonymous posters with something to say rise up. Of course, we've all seen the extreme opposite too where successful contributors or microstock admins dismiss somebody with something useful to say in a forum because they have not achieved "enough" success or have not uploaded enough recently or whatever. That chills the discussion as much or more then anonymity and gives an excessive amount of power to those at the very top.
Leaf, I'm empathetic to your concerns about what might get posted when you are not around and understand if you don't want to wake up in the middle of the night concerned about what somebody might have posted. I do however think that $5 a month is pretty steep and I would not pay it. I associate that kind of a price structure with an ongoing service somebody is providing like an online magazine or movies on demand where the provider is incurring costs on an ongoing basis. I suggest instead a one-time fee when somebody wants to activate the right to post anonymously. If set high enough, this would give a barrier to entry that your ordinary anonymous jerk would not be willing to pay, but would give mild but paranoid people the opportunity to be responsibly anonymous. I became a premium member here to support the site. Maybe one of the perks of being a premium member is the right to post anonymously?
-
I would be happy to see the change. I would be happy to see the people who use the anonymity here as an excuse to act rude and crude leave here. I feel there are a lot of other people like me who won't post here because certain regulars don't want to listen and share thoughtful opinions here. They just hang out waiting to pounce on every post and jeer and snicker. And what's more spread unfounded rumours that if you don't agree with you are ridiculed for. That's why I never participated in this much to the point that I couldn't remember my log in name if I had one and started a new account after having this site bookmarked on my favorites bar for 7 years. - Brad Martin
-
I would be happy to see the change. I would be happy to see the people who use the anonymity here as an excuse to act rude and crude leave here.
Would you also be happy to see everyone else leave who uses anonymity to stay out of trouble when they post unpleasant things about an agency? What about people who don't want to be copied?
ETA thanks for the negative but how do you disagree with a question?
-
Let me add to this:
I was banned on the istockphoto forum because I criticized the google deal.
Lobo (pieman) did that, he pressed the button.
But so easy is it not, and there is such a thing as pride. There are buttons not to be played with but to be taken seriously.
Im not going to pay the monthly wages to an improfessional moderator in a foriegn country who wont listen and just presses buttons when he gets emotional unstable and thinks critisism is annoying.
So that push of the button cost the company.
I withdrew my port.
Then he can look around and see who else is going to pay his monthly wages.
Didn't you actually get banned for being a boorish and repetitive oaf, over a sustained period and involving several different issues? I was actually somewhat surprised you lasted as long as you did. I thought Lobo had the patience of a saint in your case.
How are IS losing money on you withdrawing your port anyway? Do you imagine that you have an ardent following of eager buyers, that have since opened new accounts elsewhere, just to buy your sought-after work? Can't see that myself. I suspect that IS customers had plenty to choose from without even noticing that your stuff was missing. I very much doubt that Lobo has had to take a pay-cut as a direct result of your lost portfolio.
Ha, ha, ha,! brilliant wording. ;D ;D ;D. Boorish oaf. love it.
-
I've been keeping away from here for some time and am rather surprised and shocked at this suggestion, I suspect it will make this a far more anodyne and boring place, and for that reason, I'm out. I've cancelled my account and won't be back.
-
I've been keeping away from here for some time and .......
So if there is a change, it would not have made a difference in any case....? Some peoples logic?
-
I've been keeping away from here for some time and .......
So if there is a change, it would not have made a difference in any case....? Some peoples logic?
I'd say vlad, microbius, and michealo all had positive things to add to this forum. It's sad to see 3 people leave just at the suggestion of changing the site but I suspect many many more would leave if the change actually happened.
-
I've been keeping away from here for some time and .......
So if there is a change, it would not have made a difference in any case....? Some peoples logic?
I'd say vlad, microbius, and michealo all had positive things to add to this forum. It's sad to see 3 people leave just at the suggestion of changing the site but I suspect many many more would leave if the change actually happened.
Was referring to the specific individual's statement.
Sorry about the rest as well, but I think their reactions was very emotionally charged (and totally over reacted IMO). As Tyler said, this was just put up for discussion.
-
Yes but I think that others feel (as I do) that the strength of feeling against us is rather shocking and unexpected. It's also strange to suddenly become an 'us' as there was no sense of division prior to this. It feels as though this is only going in one direction, and that we're going to be pushed out. In which case it's better to pull the plug ourselves than await our fate.
It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. People feel what they feel for their own reasons.
-
I've been keeping away from here for some time and .......
So if there is a change, it would not have made a difference in any case....? Some peoples logic?
I'd say vlad, microbius, and michealo all had positive things to add to this forum. It's sad to see 3 people leave just at the suggestion of changing the site but I suspect many many more would leave if the change actually happened.
Was referring to the specific individual's statement.
Sorry about the rest as well, but I think their reactions was very emotionally charged (and totally over reacted IMO). As Tyler said, this was just put up for discussion.
We've both been here a while. Some people only post once every few months but they have been doing that for years, didn't you take a break for a while? My guess is the decision has been made to try this out and that's why people are already leaving.
-
Talking about feelings.
I have the feeling that there are layers of multiple logons in action here to camouflage a few individuals with maybe not so nice or direct hostile intents.
It is characteristic that anonymity is defended by all means. And that is telling in it self.
Then I ask why? Why do these people need that camouflage?
Copycats?
Agencies revenge?
I dont buy it, everybody that make pictures of interest are copied.
Agencies only revenge if you are stupid enough to brag about your actions.
-
Yes but I think that others feel (as I do) that the strength of feeling against us is rather shocking and unexpected. It's also strange to suddenly become an 'us' as there was no sense of division prior to this. It feels as though this is only going in one direction, and that we're going to be pushed out. In which case it's better to pull the plug ourselves than await our fate.
It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. People feel what they feel for their own reasons.
Did not get the same feeling from the discussions here. As a matter of fact, I think by far the most pluses went to people supporting anonymity. That is why I find people leaving already strange and you are right, I do not understand it when it is only a discussion and no clear decision was made yet. Opting out is just pressing a button, why not just wait for a decision?
-
I've been keeping away from here for some time and .......
So if there is a change, it would not have made a difference in any case....? Some peoples logic?
I'd say vlad, microbius, and michealo all had positive things to add to this forum. It's sad to see 3 people leave just at the suggestion of changing the site but I suspect many many more would leave if the change actually happened.
Was referring to the specific individual's statement.
Sorry about the rest as well, but I think their reactions was very emotionally charged (and totally over reacted IMO). As Tyler said, this was just put up for discussion.
We've both been here a while. Some people only post once every few months but they have been doing that for years, didn't you take a break for a while? My guess is the decision has been made to try this out and that's why people are already leaving.
Yes I did take a break, but it had nothing to do with being anonymous or not or anything that was only being discussed at the time. Did I miss where that decision on this issue was finally made?
-
You only have to look at JPSDK's comment above, and imagine how it feels to be on the receiving end of something like that to understand why perfectly nice, decent and honest people would not want to be a part of this any more.
There is a big difference between someone who is a troll, or is lying and cheating in some way, and someone who is justifiably sensitive about security on the Internet. Some people will have been burned before and don't want to put their hand in the fire twice. Some people will have things going on their own life that have left them super-sensitive and wrung out. Some people want to speak freely without risking the wrath of certain agencies. Some people fear copycats. There are lots of reasons why a person may choose anonymity, and there's a long and established history of creatives doing just that.
-
Until this debate I didnt care about anonymity. I thought it was OK and people had their good reasons. I was more concerned about the behaviour of some individuals.
Now things have polarized and the disadvantages of anonymity have come forewards:
1...As well as you can hide from the agencies and tax people, they can also hide from you.
2...Certain individuals slide to the dark side.
3...The forum becomes a lot less trustworthy, providing mostly hear say, guesses and false accusations.
4...The forums can be used to make and spread a spin on a story. We think we have a debate, but it might as well be, that it is a spin brought public by agents with economical interests.
-
No doubt all those things are true for SOME people. My point is that not ALL anonymous posters are anonymous for devious reasons, and it's really unpleasant that the issue has been generalised to the point that it has.
-
Until this debate I didnt care about anonymity. I thought it was OK and people had their good reasons. I was more concerned about the behaviour of some individuals.
Now things have polarized and the disadvantages of anonymity have come forewards:
1...As well as you can hide from the agencies and tax people, they can also hide from you.
2...Certain individuals slide to the dark side.
3...The forum becomes a lot less trustworthy, providing mostly hear say, guesses and false accusations.
4...The forums can be used to make and spread a spin on a story. We think we have a debate, but it might as well be, that it is a spin brought public by agents with economical interests.
Its true!! you are a boorish oaf, on and on and on, complaining. ;D ;D ;D
-
No doubt all those things are true for SOME people. My point is that not ALL anonymous posters are anonymous for devious reasons, and it's really unpleasant that the issue has been generalised to the point that it has.
Of course it is not all people. Its probably only a few who have dubious interests.
-
Thanks, and I think I misinterpreted a part of your previous post as being more accusatory than it was on a second reading, for which I apologise.
But I hope you can understand that a lot of posts that have been made by various people are lumping all anons together as devious scumbags. That's really not a nice thing to hear when your only reason to be here has been to be a (hopefully) constructive member in an enjoyable community of shared interests.
-
Until this debate I didnt care about anonymity. I thought it was OK and people had their good reasons. I was more concerned about the behaviour of some individuals.
Now things have polarized and the disadvantages of anonymity have come forewards:
1...As well as you can hide from the agencies and tax people, they can also hide from you.
2...Certain individuals slide to the dark side.
3...The forum becomes a lot less trustworthy, providing mostly hear say, guesses and false accusations.
4...The forums can be used to make and spread a spin on a story. We think we have a debate, but it might as well be, that it is a spin brought public by agents with economical interests.
Its true!! you are a boorish oaf, on and on and on, complaining. ;D ;D ;D
Is that complaining? I think it adds value to the debate and is rather constructive.
Whereas your post has just proven my point.
Did you feel that you fell into one of the categories? Was it that?
-
Thanks, and I think I misinterpreted a part of your previous post as being more accusatory than it was on a second reading, for which I apologise.
But I hope you can understand that a lot of posts that have been made by various people are lumping all anons together as devious scumbags. That's really not a nice thing to hear when your only reason to be here has been to be a (hopefully) constructive member in an enjoyable community of shared interests.
Ruby...
Well look at the posts around you. Thats a consequence. You can be ever so nice, and have all the good intents in the world, but it does not take many to polute the gutter. Then also the nice people like you have to swimm in it.
I dont think its worth it.
-
Some people have cited the anodyne quality of the new Alamy forums as what this will become if anonymity is removed. I couldn't say, as I haven't signed up yet, but probably will tomorrow to see how other people's month was there.
However, one of the most ignorant, annoying posters there, a rabid anti-micro tog who posted all sorts of half-truths about iS and SS [1], but ran home crying if anyone tried to put him right, accusing them of foul play, was not anonymous.
[1] i.e. he'd venture onto iS or SS's forum every few months, then quote one post or even part of a post to back up some point he was making, with no interest in the context.
-
Oh yes, him we know. He rants on micros abouts the macros and opposite, and has an affinity to sports cars ( rusty saab) and Swedish castles (wooden house in Väksjö).
He has a whole nick building factory that produces his many split personalities.
-
(lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
Well none of the anonymous people are kiss A***s as being anonymous takes away the whole point of kissing A** ;)
-
(lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
Well none of the anonymous people are kiss A***s as being anonymous takes away the whole point of kissing A** ;)
Good point. I wonder if posting tone would change if public posters went anonymous under a new name?
-
(lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
Well none of the anonymous people are kiss A***s as being anonymous takes away the whole point of kissing A** ;)
True. Replace with "(plus hunters) ::)"
-
(lot of kiss @sses......) ::)
Well none of the anonymous people are kiss A***s as being anonymous takes away the whole point of kissing A** ;)
True. Replace with "(plus hunters) ::)"
Ok I'll take that :D Actually as far as giving pluses or minuses go we are all anonymous
-
Ok I'll take that :D Actually as far as giving pluses or minuses go we are all anonymous
I would think that leaf can see all..... ;)
-
Ok I'll take that :D Actually as far as giving pluses or minuses go we are all anonymous
I would think that leaf can see all..... ;)
Yes I believe he can at least I hope so.
-
Ok I'll take that :D Actually as far as giving pluses or minuses go we are all anonymous
I would think that leaf can see all..... ;)
Yes I believe he can at least I hope so.
He can, I know
-
Ok I'll take that :D Actually as far as giving pluses or minuses go we are all anonymous
I would think that leaf can see all..... ;)
Yes I believe he can at least I hope so.
Yeah, I can easily see who has voted on a post, but can't see who voted + or - unless I look at the mysql database or unless there is only one vote and then it is obvious.
-
Until this debate I didnt care about anonymity. I thought it was OK and people had their good reasons. I was more concerned about the behaviour of some individuals.
Now things have polarized and the disadvantages of anonymity have come forewards:
1...As well as you can hide from the agencies and tax people, they can also hide from you.
2...Certain individuals slide to the dark side.
3...The forum becomes a lot less trustworthy, providing mostly hear say, guesses and false accusations.
4...The forums can be used to make and spread a spin on a story. We think we have a debate, but it might as well be, that it is a spin brought public by agents with economical interests.
24 billion people use the internet with real names and the world of msg will cause people to leave because they can't be anonymous. Fear is not a reason its an excuse. Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us just as much as we can be private. I want to know who I'm writing to and who I'm reading from.
-
Until this debate I didnt care about anonymity. I thought it was OK and people had their good reasons. I was more concerned about the behaviour of some individuals.
Now things have polarized and the disadvantages of anonymity have come forewards:
1...As well as you can hide from the agencies and tax people, they can also hide from you.
2...Certain individuals slide to the dark side.
3...The forum becomes a lot less trustworthy, providing mostly hear say, guesses and false accusations.
4...The forums can be used to make and spread a spin on a story. We think we have a debate, but it might as well be, that it is a spin brought public by agents with economical interests.
24 billion people use the internet with real names and the world of msg will cause people to leave because they can't be anonymous. Fear is not a reason its an excuse. Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us just as much as we can be private. I want to know who I'm writing to and who I'm reading from.
?? You are anonymous yourself? Weird statement.
-
Until this debate I didnt care about anonymity. I thought it was OK and people had their good reasons. I was more concerned about the behaviour of some individuals.
Now things have polarized and the disadvantages of anonymity have come forewards:
1...As well as you can hide from the agencies and tax people, they can also hide from you.
2...Certain individuals slide to the dark side.
3...The forum becomes a lot less trustworthy, providing mostly hear say, guesses and false accusations.
4...The forums can be used to make and spread a spin on a story. We think we have a debate, but it might as well be, that it is a spin brought public by agents with economical interests.
24 billion people use the internet with real names and the world of msg will cause people to leave because they can't be anonymous. Fear is not a reason its an excuse. Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us just as much as we can be private. I want to know who I'm writing to and who I'm reading from.
?? You are anonymous yourself? Weird statement.
He meant everybody BUT him.
-
Hmm, Rubyroo left as well. It is not even implemented yet, but already loads of people dropping off.
So far left Matt Dixon, Rubyroo, Microbius, Vlad the Imp, Michealo, :(
-
24 billion people use the internet with real names and the world of msg will cause people to leave because they can't be anonymous. Fear is not a reason its an excuse. Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us just as much as we can be private. I want to know who I'm writing to and who I'm reading from.
At least 17 billion of them must be deceiving you with false names, since there are only seven billion people on Earth.
-
Hmm, Rubyroo left as well. It is not even implemented yet, but already loads of people dropping off.
So far left Matt Dixon, Rubyroo, Microbius, Vlad the Imp, Michealo, :(
I won't close my account - unless I have to pay for anonymity - I just wont' be participating in any stock related discussions anymore besides Symbiostock.
-
Who knows of another open, anonymous microstock forum? Anything on Google Groups? I hate to see the fun and interesting discussion end, but that's obviously what will happen here. Some of my favorite provocateurs have already left.
-
Who knows of another open, anonymous microstock forum? Anything on Google Groups? I hate to see the fun and interesting discussion end, but that's obviously what will happen here. Some of my favorite provocateurs have already left.
I'm not aware of anything else like MSG. There had been a Yahoo group that was reasonably active a long time ago and fell by the wayside after most people migrated here.
I am very sad to see departures as a result of this proposal (although it's not a surprise that this is a very sensitive topic; it's been discussed before and every time has resulted in a very polarized discussion)
The fastest way to get people to leave is to have the discussions here become uninteresting or the members and visits dwindle. IMO Tyler should either implement this or state that the idea has been shelved. One way or the other we can move on versus leave the topic hanging indefinitely
-
Hmm, Rubyroo left as well. It is not even implemented yet, but already loads of people dropping off.
So far left Matt Dixon, Rubyroo, Microbius, Vlad the Imp, Michealo, :(
Matt dixon? Hmmm i thought that WAS his real name.
-
No doubt all those things are true for SOME people. My point is that not ALL anonymous posters are anonymous for devious reasons, and it's really unpleasant that the issue has been generalised to the point that it has.
Of course it is not all people. Its probably only a few who have dubious interests.
I am seeing a fair amount of judgmental ego from a few non anonymous people here while they promote an exclusionary forum for people who make the same choices they have. There also seems to be an inability to look at life from any other perspective than their own.
I wonder how the board would respond if it was instead asked to exclude non anonymous members with judgmental self centered egos. It is easy to demonize someone when you do not know them by name, but trust me you personally know some of us and some of us are your friends, well respected submitters and site reviewers.
-
I don't have time to read all 10 pages but I support what Leaf is proposing. Tayler, please go ahead and implement this - and if some people rather not post than stand behind their own words, good riddance.
Our words should be able to stand on their own with out the benefit of names behind them. In my opinion some people in this world put far to much weight in the musings of a few big names built utilizing smoke and mirrors.
I did not give your post an -neg but I found it offensive and surprising from someone I did respect.
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.
You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.
Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.
Leaf hasn't entered into a contract with me to sell my images, only to unilaterally change that contract because it was "unsustainable". As for being banned, it's of no consequence and did not enter into the decision to leave IS. The point is that you come here and try to turn this into one of your " let's make a joke about pie and you'll do what I say " threads, and I don't buy it. If anything, your posts reinforce Leaf's point, since by knowing who you are we are well aware of your complete lack of credibility.
Maybe I should change my vote...
Actually I made a joke about cookies, not pies. And the name Pieman was used due to the fact that Lobo was already taken back in January 2008. I'm glad I could participate in the reinforcement of the point Leaf was trying to make. I suspect that was my intent.
Anyhoo, I will leave you all to it. I think this a pretty lively discussion though so I will continue to lurk :)
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.
You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.
Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.
Leaf hasn't entered into a contract with me to sell my images, only to unilaterally change that contract because it was "unsustainable". As for being banned, it's of no consequence and did not enter into the decision to leave IS. The point is that you come here and try to turn this into one of your " let's make a joke about pie and you'll do what I say " threads, and I don't buy it. If anything, your posts reinforce Leaf's point, since by knowing who you are we are well aware of your complete lack of credibility.
Maybe I should change my vote...
Actually I made a joke about cookies, not pies. And the name Pieman was used due to the fact that Lobo was already taken back in January 2008. I'm glad I could participate in the reinforcement of the point Leaf was trying to make. I suspect that was my intent.
Anyhoo, I will leave you all to it. I think this a pretty lively discussion though so I will continue to lurk :)
Yes Lobo we have noticed that this conversation has really sparked your attention and participation at an unusual level.
-
Hmm, Rubyroo left as well. It is not even implemented yet, but already loads of people dropping off.
So far left Matt Dixon, Rubyroo, Microbius, Vlad the Imp, Michealo, :(
Matt dixon? Hmmm i thought that WAS his real name.
Yeah, probably because of the stocksy thread, not related here. The name just stuck in my head as being greyed out.
-
I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.
Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.
For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
Keep your cookies.
Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.
You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.
Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.
Leaf hasn't entered into a contract with me to sell my images, only to unilaterally change that contract because it was "unsustainable". As for being banned, it's of no consequence and did not enter into the decision to leave IS. The point is that you come here and try to turn this into one of your " let's make a joke about pie and you'll do what I say " threads, and I don't buy it. If anything, your posts reinforce Leaf's point, since by knowing who you are we are well aware of your complete lack of credibility.
Maybe I should change my vote...
Actually I made a joke about cookies, not pies. And the name Pieman was used due to the fact that Lobo was already taken back in January 2008. I'm glad I could participate in the reinforcement of the point Leaf was trying to make. I suspect that was my intent.
Anyhoo, I will leave you all to it. I think this a pretty lively discussion though so I will continue to lurk :)
Once again not talking about the real issues, only pies and cookies...
-
Leaf have you seen http://www.pro4um.com/ (http://www.pro4um.com/) I think they charge around $250 a year. I was a member at one point in time although I never participated (I got it for free). It was mostly civil although even after paying that much money there were still arguments and angry insulting posts every now and then. I think charging that much would keep out most of the undesirables but like I said before we are all competing against each other so I doubt there would be the level cooperation necessary to make it worth the price. Look around now almost nobody posts anything that will give their competitors an edge. I don't know what you want to accomplish but kicking out half the people here probably won't do it.
-
The fastest way to get people to leave is to have the discussions here become uninteresting or the members and visits dwindle. IMO Tyler should either implement this or state that the idea has been shelved. One way or the other we can move on versus leave the topic hanging indefinitely
In a nutshell. But I think maybe it's already too late.
-
IMO all the positives and negatives have now been highlighted. This thread is now starting to showing some heavy (unnecessarily) casualties. Hope with jsnover that it can come to a quick conclusion now!
-
IMO all the positives and negatives have now been highlighted. This thread is now starting to showing some heavy (unnecessarily) casualties. Hope with jsnover that it can come to a quick conclusion now!
Agree 100%.
Very disappointed to see we'd lost Rubyroo today too. She was an interesting and valuable member of this community.
-
24 billion people use the internet with real names and the world of msg will cause people to leave because they can't be anonymous. Fear is not a reason its an excuse. Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us just as much as we can be private. I want to know who I'm writing to and who I'm reading from.
At least 17 billion of them must be deceiving you with false names, since there are only seven billion people on Earth.
ROFLMAO!! Brilliant. This deserved more than a plus 1 IMO ;D
-
As much as I like the idea of participants being required to provide a portfolio link, I suppose some exceptions would have to be made for site administrators that pop in occasionally. They may not actually have a portfolio.
-
Hmm, Rubyroo left as well. It is not even implemented yet, but already loads of people dropping off.
So far left Matt Dixon, Rubyroo, Microbius, Vlad the Imp, Michealo, :(
Matt dixon? Hmmm i thought that WAS his real name.
I'm sure it was.
What make you think that only anonymous people object strongly to this move? I am very much against it for all the reasons I've stated throughout this thread, and many additional ones articulated better by some of these "anonymous" users whose opinions and input I have come to value.
If this move is implemented I may not cancel my account, but I am certain that my participation will be greatly diminished, both as a matter of principle and because some of the most interesting and valued members are gone. It's already happening.
Very bad idea, and if I were Tyler I would be backtracking as fast as possible before this place turns into a ghost town.
-
Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us...
Well, that's just life in the big city, I guess. And it also sort of makes the opposite case: if I'm anonymous, I don't have to worry about an agency "watching" me.
But identity disclosure has obviously become a religious issue - and there's no arguing with fundamentalists. They want us anons out of their church, and they want a "Defense Of Identity Act".
-
Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us...
Well, that's just life in the big city, I guess. And it also sort of makes the opposite case: if I'm anonymous, I don't have to worry about an agency "watching" me.
But identity disclosure has obviously become a religious issue - and there's no arguing with fundamentalists.
I don't think anyone can possibly change anyone's mind who wants to stay anonymous. What could anyone here say to prove to me that if I share my portfolio I won't be copied? What could anyone say that would guarantee that no agency would retaliate against me for something I said? There is no possible proof or guarantee and that's why many people that want to stay anonymous will leave.
-
Oh my, what a discussion! It would be interesting to see how many thumbs up and how many thumbs down each post gets, because I have the feeling that negative posts may look like -10 but that doesn't mean the don't actually have 20 +'s, you can't even see them because of the 30 -'s!
The little piece of reality here that makes me sick to my stomach, is the fact that so many of us feel it is necessary to protect freedom of speech from the very people we entrust to sell our material!!!
I've seen the copycats theory presented..... (I am personally too lazy to look for and reproduce hot photos ETA I should add ethical to this too - but I am definitely too lazy...)... wouldn't it be easier for a copycat to go right to the agency than to one of our portfolios to see what the hottest selling photos are?
-
Oh my, what a discussion! It would be interesting to see how many thumbs up and how many thumbs down each post gets, because I have the feeling that negative posts may look like -10 but that doesn't mean the don't actually have 20 +'s, you can't even see them because of the 30 -'s!
The little piece of reality here that makes me sick to my stomach, is the fact that so many of us feel it is necessary to protect freedom of speech from the very people we entrust to sell our material!!!
I've seen the copycats theory presented..... (I am personally too lazy to look for and reproduce hot photos ETA I should add ethical to this too - but I am definitely too lazy...)... wouldn't it be easier for a copycat to go right to the agency than to one of our portfolios to see what the hottest selling photos are?
Not everyone is too lazy. A niche series of images that gets 50 downloads each in a few months won't show up in the top sellers but it could make you many thousands of dollars a year. Anyone who posts that they are doing well will have their portfolio scrutinized and depending on the series of images risks being copied. But again people that worry about this will never be convinced that it's worth the risk, weigh posting in a forum vs. losing your livelihood.
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Leaf's proposal is that we just try it for a month. If it works out that the site is better, then the arguments against it, will just fade away. If it's not any better, then it can just go back to how it is now.
I suspect that people that are against a trial, are afraid that the outcome might produce a better experince for the microstock community. If not, then their arguments will have been proven correct. A trial is the only way to find out for sure.
-
I'm quite happy to pay the yearly voluntary fee as I think that Tyler deserves something back for his hard work but I'm really not keen on the idea of being forced to pay a monthly fee just to keep anonomity.
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Leaf's proposal is that we just try it for a month. If it works out that the site is better, then the arguments against it, will just fade away. If it's not any better, then it can just go back to how it is now.
I suspect that people that are agaisnt a trial, are afraid that the outcome might produce a better experince for the microstock community. If not, then their arguments will have been proven correct. A trial is the only way to find out for sure.
I'm not so sure people would come back, 4 people already left just at the suggestion of it, some of them probably won't be back. If it works out better then great but if it doesn't is the site done?
-
I'm not so sure people would come back, 4 people already left just at the suggestion of it, some of them probably won't be back. If it works out better then great but if it doesn't is the site done?
I don't know. Leaving a site would be a scary and foreign experience for most microstock contributors. (insert sarcasm font here) ;)
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Leaf's proposal is that we just try it for a month. If it works out that the site is better, then the arguments against it, will just fade away. If it's not any better, then it can just go back to how it is now.
I suspect that people that are agaisnt a trial, are afraid that the outcome might produce a better experince for the microstock community. If not, then their arguments will have been proven correct. A trial is the only way to find out for sure.
I'm not so sure people would come back, 4 people already left just at the suggestion of it, some of them probably won't be back. If it works out better then great but if it doesn't is the site done?
tickstock, what are you still doing here? I thought you said, "See ya later then. I'm out." (2nd post of the whole thread)
-
One important suggestion that was made by Jsnover didnt get picked up, its about agency employees posting here need to get a banner regardless if they want it or not.
-
One important suggestion that was made by Jsnover didnt get picked up, its about agency employees posting here need to get a banner regardless if they want it or not.
Shouldn't they be allowed to be anonymous too?
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Leaf's proposal is that we just try it for a month. If it works out that the site is better, then the arguments against it, will just fade away. If it's not any better, then it can just go back to how it is now.
I suspect that people that are agaisnt a trial, are afraid that the outcome might produce a better experince for the microstock community. If not, then their arguments will have been proven correct. A trial is the only way to find out for sure.
I'm not so sure people would come back, 4 people already left just at the suggestion of it, some of them probably won't be back. If it works out better then great but if it doesn't is the site done?
tickstock, what are you still doing here? I thought you said, "See ya later then. I'm out." (2nd post of the whole thread)
I'll go if and when the change happens, but see you don't need to be anonymous to make trolling posts do you? ;)
-
One important suggestion that was made by Jsnover didnt get picked up, its about agency employees posting here need to get a banner regardless if they want it or not.
Shouldn't they be allowed to be anonymous too?
They are still anonymous, just a banner that says which agency they are with. If you stick an IS banner on pieman, you still dont know who he is.
-
They are still anonymous, just a banner that says which agency they are with. If you stick an IS banner on pieman, you still dont know who he is.
It doesn't sound very anonymous. It also doesn't seem right to say one person has to reveal where they work, but other people don't. The same rules should be applied to everyone.
-
They are still anonymous, just a banner that says which agency they are with. If you stick an IS banner on pieman, you still dont know who he is.
It doesn't sound very anonymous. It also doesn't seem right to say one person has to reveal where they work, but other people don't. The same rules should be applied to everyone.
Fair enough, I thought it was a good idea as we are dealing with agencies.
I just dont like the idea of an agency being present here without knowing it.
-
I know I am a bit slow,so I do not quite get this trail thing. For one month everyone disclose who they really are, if it does not work we go back to being anonymous? :o
-
Hmm, Rubyroo left as well. It is not even implemented yet, but already loads of people dropping off.
So far left Matt Dixon, Rubyroo, Microbius, Vlad the Imp, Michealo, :(
Matt dixon? Hmmm i thought that WAS his real name.
Yeah, probably because of the stocksy thread, not related here. The name just stuck in my head as being greyed out.
Yes, i think you are right. Now that you mention it, i remember reading that.
-
It appears that candidate 'Bad Idea' is going to win the election...
-
I know I am a bit slow,so I do not quite get this trail thing. For one month everyone disclose who they really are, if it does not work we go back to being anonymous? :o
Obviously, you wouldn't disclose who you really are, if you wanted to remain anonymous. You would either pay for the privilege or just go away, during the trial.
-
Bad idea, and honestly, really not anonymous member make the forum better? For what I read, the more disrespectful posts have been made by them.
If this is the begin of a better forum I'll be out.
Remember what means the word forum, is a meeting place, and I do not need to see an ID card to know if someone says the right things or not.
-
Let's ask gay people to 'just try' being straight for a month. Then we all vote on whether we think that was a 'success'. Seems fair to me.
-
I know I am a bit slow,so I do not quite get this trail thing. For one month everyone disclose who they really are, if it does not work we go back to being anonymous? :o
Obviously, you wouldn't disclose who you really are, if you wanted to remain anonymous. You would either pay for the privilege or just go away, during the trial.
Oh, I get it, for one month only those who want to remain anonymous must pay or go. After the month, if it did not work (not sure what the standard will be in judging if it worked or not), the anonymous people who paid will get their money back and all the deserters will creep back from the dark corners of the internet, where they waited quietly in obscurity and darkness, to rejoin the flock of rich faceless ones who remained.
Still think I am just too slow for the type of reasoning..... :-\
-
I know I am a bit slow,so I do not quite get this trail thing. For one month everyone disclose who they really are, if it does not work we go back to being anonymous? :o
Obviously, you wouldn't disclose who you really are, if you wanted to remain anonymous. You would either pay for the privilege or just go away, during the trial.
Oh, I get it, for one month only those who want to remain anonymous must pay or go. After the month, if it did not work (not sure what the standard will be in judging if it worked or not), the anonymous people who paid will get their money back and all the deserters will creep back from the dark corners of the internet, where they waited quietly in obscurity and darkness, to rejoin the flock of rich faceless ones who remained.
Still think I am just too slow for the type of reasoning..... :-\
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Why would you get your money back for month's service you agreed too? If you like, I can send you $5.00 for the trial. I'm not rich or faceless, but I can afford the $5.00.
-
If you stick an IS banner on pieman, you still dont know who he is.
Actually, you do. 8)
-
Let's ask gay people to 'just try' being straight for a month. Then we all vote on whether we think that was a 'success'. Seems fair to me.
Let me see if I follow your logic. You're saying that everyone in the Microstock Group is gay? And, Leaf is proposing that we all go straight for a month?
-
OK, ok, I think everyone has had a chance to voice their opinion on this. Lots of good thoughts - thanks. And, unfortunately a few casualties at the mere mention of the idea. That still makes me scratch my head ???
I'll lock this thread now and think on it for a bit. Nothing will happen without a good warning and like I've stated earlier, even if I do decide to implement some version of what I proposed, nobody's account will all of a sudden become 'exposed'. Any info that is shown in the 'shown identities' will be entered AFTER the change... if there ever is one. I have to think a little on this.