As I start to upload images I think about how many of these are "good" enough to be on my site and how many are fillers.  Without a review process I might ( will likely) post images that others consider crap.

If all the people on the network post there good images as well as their "also ran" images can the network ever be successful?

A couple of ideas are bouncing in my brain... but it is starting to rain and I loose internet in the rain....

Glenn

Leo,

Regarding SEO I installed SEO wordpress like  you suggested and I use it for each picture putting title copy the description (with some words in bold in the metadata) and add a focus keyword
However when I look at the page code after I do not find the alt tag,or I read it is important to have for images, did I miss something?


The topic came up on WP but not real answers were given: http://wordpress.org/support/topic/plugin-wordpress-seo-by-yoast-missing-alt-tags
Cheers
L

Never mind, the alt are there did not found them at first:)

SEO will help us with google but I don't think it will bring return buyers if the network is full of crap...though "one man's garbage is another man's treasure"

I would like to propose a shift in what this network is.

I would like to see a way to have the images curated.  I would like to see the curators get a (small) percentage of the sales that they generate.

The way I see this is:  xyzstockcurator, lists on their site images that they like from the entire network. When a buyer purchases through ( through not from) xyzstockcurator 5% of the sale goes to them, the other 95% goes to the contributor.

This could be a way for photo-editors to help expand and grow the network.

If we can put this into place we could even do something like 1% of sales goes to symbio stock co-op inc ltd, to be used for development and marketing.

Curating is difficult. We are with an edited macro agency, and are often surprised at the files they turn down - proven sellers which did well on Getty. We get sales on Alamy from files turned down by others.

We need to watch how things develop, and then make decisions on who to link with, most likely in closed networks, as Cardmaverick suggests. At the moment we don't know enough - is it better to link with people with similar portfolios, or those with very different work? Also there aren't enough people yet with sites up to give a lot of choice of who to link with.

People really should self curate. We have about 5000-6000 images on various sites, but will only put about 2000 on Symbiostock. Some of them look like crap, but they have sold well.

Then again, maybe we'll also add some real crap to thwart the copycats, and make posts about how well it's selling

Curating is difficult. We are with an edited macro agency, and are often surprised at the files they turn down - proven sellers which did well on Getty. We get sales on Alamy from files turned down by others.

We need to watch how things develop, and then make decisions on who to link with, most likely in closed networks, as Cardmaverick suggests. At the moment we don't know enough - is it better to link with people with similar portfolios, or those with very different work? Also there aren't enough people yet with sites up to give a lot of choice of who to link with.

People really should self curate. We have about 5000-6000 images on various sites, but will only put about 2000 on Symbiostock. Some of them look like crap, but they have sold well.

Then again, maybe we'll also add some real crap to thwart the copycats, and make posts about how well it's selling

For me this whole project is about putting the choices (and the money) back into the individual photographer's hands and away from agencies. So I agree, self curate, self price and find the kinds of sites you want to network with that appeal to you.

Now people want to control what I put on my site? So much for the freedom of choice and individual galleries.

Curator (lets be honest Censorship) to do what, restrict me from having photos of frogs, rocks, beer... naked Barbie Dolls or something that someone else deems inappropriate.

So what's needed is some link blocking, but person A says, my sites OK, person B says no, the whole chain just imploded.

What's to say (totally hypothetical) I don't like Horses or Unicorns photos because I'm a car guy, so now do I block everyone with those?

Along with freedom of artistic choice, you are going to have to allow others personal freedom and choices which you may not agree with. Otherwise it's not free thinking, or freedom of choice anymore, is it?

Maybe the answer is only link to people you approve of and all in your personal clique agree not to cross the borders, or link to anyone else that's not up to passing your approval standards. Become your own little "elite" artists alliance. That's how you control and curate.

As I start to upload images I think about how many of these are "good" enough to be on my site and how many are fillers.  Without a review process I might ( will likely) post images that others consider crap.

If all the people on the network post there good images as well as their "also ran" images can the network ever be successful?

Glenn

I would like to see a way to have the images curated.

Do you want me to come to your site and tell you what you should have for sale and what not? Then why do you want to come to mine, or someone else and do that?

Let the buyers decide!

Exactly, don't link to them. But say A links to B and B links to C and A doesn't approve of C... now what?

Curator, and reviews (and people who want to control others artistic ideas?) kind of defeat the whole independence theory don't they? With the curator plan, I need approval from the group to run my own website?

I read it as being more to check on the quality of the images, we have all seen photos that look great as thumbnails but absolute rubbish at full size with regard to noise, sharpness etc.  If someone has a gallery full of noisy, out of focus pictures of  people with heads missing, poles growing out of them, lots of logos etc then they could quickly ruin the reputation of the network. 

Someone totally new to stock and seeing the software available and thinking "oh I could make some money easily at that " who has never gone through the stock review minefield and learned what is generally required might need a little nudge in the right direction and I would think for the sake of everyone else we should be entitled to let them know.

Sure, you can put whatever you want on your site and in your galleries but if I don't like what someone is doing I would not link to them

Exactly, don't link to them. But say A links to B and B links to C and A doesn't approve of C... now what?

Curator, and reviews (and people who want to control others artistic ideas?) kind of defeat the whole independence theory don't they? With the curator plan, I need approval from the group to run my own website?

Quote from: Tinny on April 09, 2013, 09:28

I read it as being more to check on the quality of the images, we have all seen photos that look great as thumbnails but absolute rubbish at full size with regard to noise, sharpness etc.  If someone has a gallery full of noisy, out of focus pictures of  people with heads missing, poles growing out of them, lots of logos etc then they could quickly ruin the reputation of the network. 

Someone totally new to stock and seeing the software available and thinking "oh I could make some money easily at that " who has never gone through the stock review minefield and learned what is generally required might need a little nudge in the right direction and I would think for the sake of everyone else we should be entitled to let them know.

Sure, you can put whatever you want on your site and in your galleries but if I don't like what someone is doing I would not link to them

A's stuff doesnt show on Cs so its irrelevant. Who i have in my network only means that their images show when someone searches my site but it doesnt go the other way unless that person also networks back to me. So the only thing showing on your site are images you choose. This isnt facebook. 

Do you want me to come to your site and tell you what you should have for sale and what not? Then why do you want to come to mine, or someone else and do that?

Let the buyers decide!

No I don't want to "tell" you what to put on your site.

What I want is a way to link to what I think are the best images on your site, and other sites in the network.  Then I can publish a list of "Glenn's list of best racing pics" ( if you are on model mayhem think of lists of images)  I will then have a "curated" list of what I think are "the best"

If I get known as a good editor of images, I will have buyers coming to my site in order to quickly find what I consider the best ( if they don't like my vision then they may go to XYZ because they like their vision)

This will not effect what you publish on your site at all!!!!

Does this make sense?

Glenn

I understand what you're after, but I think you may have a hard time finding network connections willing to kick a percentage of sales back to help promote it.

Give it time, we'll see all kinds of innovations once this goes mainstream. I suspect we'll see lots of people who have never heard of microstock trying this out for all kinds of downloadable products.

Instead of paying someone to check our images why not, if anyone wants to spend money - put it into some kind of marketing.  I have no idea what as this is not my field but I expect someone does

They way I see it, no one is paid to check our images... they get paid if they "sell" images.  No cost, of fees to you, just a small percentage of what is sold through their site.

Yes and I shouldn't have quoted only you.

The idea that some people were going with was restricting and "I would like to see a way to have the images curated." as judging others portfolios. Your idea of someone doing a best of site is something different. Optional, and someone can join or ignore, not a bad idea at all. But I don't know why that agent/curator would be any better than being independent?

I still don't see it as any benefit, giving up 5% to have someone select what they think is best and have a duplicate site, but fine, go for it. Paying someone for better marketing. Fine, as individuals pick and choose.

Quote from: Travelling-light on April 07, 2013, 17:20

We need to watch how things develop, and then make decisions on who to link with, most likely in closed networks, as Cardmaverick suggests.

For me this whole project is about putting the choices (and the money) back into the individual photographer's hands and away from agencies. So I agree, self curate, self price and find the kinds of sites you want to network with that appeal to you.

That covers it. Self choice and networks that appeal to our own direction. The part I like the most is 100% of what I sell/license, goes to me. No one says what is CrapStock and what's not, or how much I should sell my work for. (or what I should call my website!)

I understand what you're after, but I think you may have a hard time finding network connections willing to kick a percentage of sales back to help promote it.

some people are good at selling some are better artists, it would be just fair to give some money back to tje people that are good in selling. Personally I'm ready to give anyone 50% of the selling price who sells my art.