pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Would you find this community more valuable if everyone shared their identity?

Yes
49 (36.6%)
No
70 (52.2%)
Depends
15 (11.2%)

Total Members Voted: 111

Author Topic: Should MSG require confirmed identities?  (Read 23924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 14, 2011, 01:41 »
0
I have been thinking about this for a while now, how to curb the negative trend that so often overtakes threads, and wonder if a site where people had to reveal their identity would be beneficial and help curb this problem.

I understand the want for some people to hide their identity but feel the gain we get when everyone shares who they are may be bigger than the loss.

In the past, some agencies have taken action on what someone has said in a public form.  I would guess what was said in the forum was a continuation of an already rocky relationship with the agency and not a shot out of the blue. Agencies in general have often proven responsive to critique as long as it is worded in a respectful manner, something that having shown identities may encourage.  I actually feel agencies would be more responsive to critique and suggestions if those suggestions and critique were made by 'visible' individuals and not people hiding under blankets.  A critique from 10 confirmed users feels a lot stronger than one from 100 anonymous individuals.

Anyhow, I'm not saying this is going to happen, I just throwing out ideas and thinking of things to consider.


« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2011, 01:44 »
0
As you know, you're really just repeating a thread topic that has already been beaten to death, so I guess you are interested in votes rather than a discussion. Right?

« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2011, 01:50 »
0
I really don't think the reasons for anonymity have changed.

If you require identity (and as an aside, I don't know how you can reliably verify that) you'll just lose those people who don't want to put their portfolio at risk (for the vindictive agency) or don't want to have people copying them (a couple of people have mentioned that).

I'd rather ignore those who just come here to stir up trouble and live with the flaws of anonymity versus living with the flaws of a forum so tightly regulated that some people feel they have to leave. I don't see either situation as a clear win, just picking the least problematic approach.

When one of the threads descends into insanity, I just stop reading it. There are enough useful threads to contribute to and I have kids if I want to get into pointless arguments - who needs more of those in a forum? :)

I voted no, in case that wasn't obvious.

« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2011, 02:06 »
0
I'll vote yes on this one, good idea.

RT


« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2011, 02:08 »
0
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.

We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.

The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread, I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.

So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.

« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2011, 02:12 »
0
You could end up with a bigger problem if someone signs up using another person's name (someone obscure who doesn't follow forums) and then proceeds to get them into trouble with an agency. You might find yourself legally responsible for that unless you had taken reasonable steps to verify the identity. Do you really want to get involved with passports and ID cards (some of them in Hindi or Urdu)?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 02:50 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2011, 02:22 »
0
...I actually feel agencies would be more responsive to critique and suggestions if those suggestions and critique were made by 'visible' individuals and not people hiding under blankets.  A critique from 10 confirmed users feels a lot stronger than one from 100 anonymous individuals...

I'm afraid that this is, noble as it may be, a dream. Right now I see two kind of agencies: Those who are active in their own and in this forum, they listen to contributors' voices even if they are anonymous. And those agencies who see their contributors as nuisance, which is merely tolerated because money can be made from it (two big ones come to mind :P). So, no, I appreciate being anonymous here and I wouldn't be happy if it were to change.

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2011, 02:29 »
0
I really don't think the reasons for anonymity have changed.

If you require identity (and as an aside, I don't know how you can reliably verify that) you'll just lose those people who don't want to put their portfolio at risk (for the vindictive agency)

+1

I have been thinking about this for a while now, how to curb the negative trend that so often overtakes threads,

It's just reflection of how things currently are in the microstock business.

Microbius

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2011, 02:57 »
0
I personally would be terrified to make any negative comments about an agency under my real name. Microstock is pretty much the sole source of income for my family and some the agencies have demonstrated that they have to qualms about suspending accounts on the slightest provocation.
It would be like getting small farmers to talk about unscrupulous practices by supermarkets, you would just be faced by a wall of silence. The only people who would post honestly are hobbyists who have little to lose and those too big to be sacked.

If the power balance wasn't so much in the agencies favor it would be different.

michealo

« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2011, 03:24 »
0
Who is this Leaf guy!? ;-)

Wim

« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2011, 04:30 »
0
I personally would be terrified to make any negative comments about an agency under my real name. Microstock is pretty much the sole source of income for my family and some the agencies have demonstrated that they have to qualms about suspending accounts on the slightest provocation.
It would be like getting small farmers to talk about unscrupulous practices by supermarkets, you would just be faced by a wall of silence. The only people who would post honestly are hobbyists who have little to lose and those too big to be sacked.

If the power balance wasn't so much in the agencies favor it would be different.

I agree.

« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2011, 04:34 »
0
to clear up a few things...

@ Microbius
You already have confirmed your identity with portfolio links.  Yes they are hidden, but you are still showing your gauges and are willing to show that you are indeed involved in microstock and DO have an identity behind your posts, even if people can't see it.  There could be a middle ground where people are able to keep a semi-anonymous outward profile while still confirming they are indeed a contributer.

@baldricksTrousers
the idea is so much in the idea stage that whether it would work logistically hasn't really been considered.  I like to think of what ideas would be worth implementing first, THEN decide how to make it work.  That said, I would never ask for passports or drivers license or anything of the like.  For a simple Internet forum that is going way overboard.  At most I would require a PM through a stock site like Dreamstime or iStock and at least I would simply require people to link a portfolio, facebook, linkedin etc. profile... and deal with the identity theft when/if it showed up.

But thanks for all the thoughts so far.
Either way, I intend to continue attempting to step down on insults and unnecessary language in an effort to try and keep this site at least 'somewhat' professional.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 04:37 by leaf »

grp_photo

« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2011, 04:41 »
0


I have been thinking about this for a while now, how to curb the negative trend that so often overtakes threads,

It's just reflection of how things currently are in the microstock business.
+1

« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2011, 04:46 »
0
I voted yes, but I am exclusive to an agency that does talk to the contributor if there is a problem. If my family income depended on microstock and I saw that some agencies where extremely brutal in dealing with criticism, I think I would prefer to be anonymous.

But I always check if the people posting here are real and have portfolio links. Talking to someone who is active in the industry is different, than talking to someone just dropping by and posting an opinion.

« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2011, 04:55 »
0
I voted yes, but I am exclusive to an agency that does talk to the contributor if there is a problem.

Hmm. Istock's never, to my knowledge, been accused of victimising people for saying stuff off-site, it's true. But it's not noted for paying attention to contributors' concerns, either.

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2011, 05:14 »
0
I voted yes, but I am exclusive to an agency that does talk to the contributor if there is a problem.

Hmm. Istock's never, to my knowledge, been accused of victimising people for saying stuff off-site, it's true. But it's not noted for paying attention to contributors' concerns, either.

I don't know, when it comes actual individual situations (not major policy issues) you know you are going to get a response from an email or call to IStock, and in a reasonable time frame. It's hard for me to keep the two separate, but if I take a step back I have to admit that this aspect of contributor relations has been good at IS considering the size of their operation

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2011, 05:15 »
0
I would vote yes, but on second thought. "depends" would better response to my situation: beginner/links on signature. Basically i'm identified so, what is a confirmed confirmed identities? My real photo?  ;D  

I'm not using real name on nick, but easily anyone finds which agency's where i am ( forum links and some posts made earlier ). So, for critique and suggestions propose I'm already "confirmed" , but don't believe that means anything to "comissions&earnings war", mainly because my sales volume/portfolio so far.

By other side, how identity help dialog between contributors? I've read somewhere here things like "What you know about? You don't have any height to talk about that.." or "Should discourage newbies"... and I bet many people starting at micro stock would prefer anonymity.

Anyway I used to to be correct in any forum as I am directly with agency's or/and real life.

 


 

« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2011, 05:25 »
0
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.

We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.

The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread, I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.

So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.
+1

Microbius

« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2011, 05:51 »
0
There's definitely a very fine line to tread.
It gets to be a real problem when there are those who aim to use any forum they contribute to as a marketing tool for their business or to set themselves up as gurus.
There are those who want complete control over any interaction they have on a forum so they can present themselves in the best light possible regardless of where the truth lies. I know that this has led some on other forums (SS for example) to build up relationships with moderators to effectively shut down any questioning of their position and to have posts outing untruths deleted. As well as building up small gangs like in a school playground that get PMed to post on queue and bully other forum members.
What this ultimately means is that you end up with a forum no one in the know would ever contemplate reading, let alone contributing to.

« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2011, 06:55 »
0
no

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2011, 07:17 »
0

« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2011, 07:30 »
0
What I really don't like is people having multiple aliases here.  I suppose the poll will be biased by all those anonymous people with multiple registrations here.  If confirmed ID's stopped that, I think it would be a good idea.

fujiko

« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2011, 07:30 »
0
Personally, if you want me to identify privately with you and provide an ID. I'll do it.
Anything else, maybe in the future, not now.

red

« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2011, 07:36 »
0
Either way, I intend to continue attempting to step down on insults and unnecessary language in an effort to try and keep this site at least 'somewhat' professional.

I applaud that although it is more work for you, you cannot be monitoring these forums 24 hours. There are certain posters who are banned but then come back and cause trouble again. It might be good to not cut them as much slack as you have in the past. I would have no problem with implementing some way of identifying posters as actually having microstock portfolios or having some connection with the industry in general (photographer or illustrator) as a criteria for posting without identifying them by actual name.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 08:11 by cuppacoffee »

« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2011, 07:37 »
0
Yes, absolutely! It could also be an identity that is private but confirmed by Leaf.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
1936 Views
Last post September 20, 2011, 14:30
by stockmarketer
File Confirmed!

Started by CD123 Adobe Stock

7 Replies
2363 Views
Last post January 23, 2013, 17:27
by Pauws99
337 Replies
23519 Views
Last post May 31, 2013, 15:17
by leaf
Deposit Photo's - 3% Royalty Confirmed

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

85 Replies
21301 Views
Last post December 08, 2014, 15:47
by stock-will-eat-itself
57 Replies
10318 Views
Last post January 28, 2016, 04:25
by Carmen

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results