Finders Fee, to those who tries to find images!!

First pagePrevious pageof 4
Displaying 61 to 67 of 67 matches.
periwinkle
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:04AM
(Warning: long post ahead - sorry!)

My two cents -- I think that image resourcing is definitely a different type of activity than being a photographer; there are companies who hire numerous researchers for that purpose. If someone was to suggest one of my images for a Finder's Fee - I'd be delighted for the referral -- because I might not have been looking at the finder's fee section at all that day, and the requester might have choosen someone else's photograph! After all, you only get paid (photographer or finder) if the photograph is choosen.

Here's a list of suggestions that I thought about over the past week:

1. I would really like to see the requester be able to request multiple images on a single theme in one request.

For instance, if you are building a site that relies on religious images, you might need 4 or 5 images, but it really might be the same search. Or maybe the buyer needs a series of images, that use the same model -- it makes sense to put it all in one request. The buyer should be able to specify how many images up front he is willing to purchase, and a price per image.

2. Feedback from submitters is needed.

There are a number of mechanisms that could accomplish this:

  • For images that make no sense to the buyer, they could push a 'justify your choice' button. Then, the submitter could choose to either offer up an explanation of why that photo was choosen, or could withdraw the photo. These could be logged, but kept private; if the justification doesn't make sense, or the photo isn't withdrawn, the buyer could reject the image outright. Rejected images would no longer be available to be submitted to the request. Optionally, the buyer could even block the submitter from submitting more photographs to this request, or even ANY of that buyer's requests. That way, the buyer would be able to anonymously improve the list of people who reply to their request.
  • An optional request rating system could be implemented, where the buyer has the option to sort images into:

    - Shortlist
    - More like this, but not quite it
    - Less like this
    - Entirely off the mark

    These would be viewable to all, so that everyone could see where the buyer is going with the request, but the buyer wouldn't be forced to use this system, so that if a good photo is found immediately, they don't have to go through a potentially lengthy process.


3. Submitters need to be able to provide feedback to the buyer.

There are many suggestions for this, too.

  • a simple 'Need more information' button that asks the buyer to put more information on their listing.
  • a double blind system that allows communications that are blogged. usernames, image numbers, artist names, websites, and emails could be stripped, and there could be a 'report this user' button if someone is being abusive of the system.


4. Abusers of the system need to have consequences.

Both buyers and sellers have the potential for abuse of the system. There needs to be a mechanism of policing abuse.

Buyers, for instance, have requested multiple images, to get good galleries of potential images, but only select one image, or worse, select none.

Submitters have posted entirely irrelevent or borderline relevent images (although sometimes this happens by accident).

Abuse by buyers may need customer service's help; but if there was buyer stats (i.e. how many requests, how many successful conclusions, how many withdrawn or unselected), it would be helpful.

Abuse by submitters could be self-policing as well. With feedback mechanisms in place, a rating could be achieved, that the submitters could see (so that they understand what they are doing wrong), and even a mechanism so that the requester could see the submitter's 'rating' for each photograph submitted. This wouldn't tell WHO the submitter is, but might help the requester decide if they want to do business with that individual.

I do like the notion that the requester could be able to block submissions by an individual for a given request, and possibly for future submissions. That way, if they have a particularly bad set of submissions by one individual, they can decide whether or not they want to do business with that person.

To aid in that effort, it would be helpful if there was an anonymous way to see submissions grouped by submitter (aka submitter 1, submitter 2, etc.). That way, those who are truly abusing the system could easily be identified and separated from someone who made a mistake or one bad choice.

... there... that's the brain dump for today.

(edited for formatting, clarity, and terminology)


(Edited on 2006-02-04 11:35:13 by periwinkle)
Mari
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 4, 2006 6:06PM
Brett: for your #4.
Abuse by buyers may need customer service's help; but if there was buyer stats (i.e. how many requests, how many successful conclusions, how many withdrawn or unselected), it would be helpful.

Possibly a system like eBay uses with its colored stars? Click on the star and it brings up stats. It could have:
Number of completed requests
Number of cancelled requests
and others if necessary.

This way you can decided whether to engage in the request or not.
Just a thought.

Edit to add:
I can see why anonymity helps the system, but I sure don't want anyone posting my images if they don't meet the requirements of a request--and have people griping, thinking it was me who posted them.

(Edited on 2006-02-04 18:11:55 by mnieves)
lisafx
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Sat Feb 4, 2006 7:55PM

Edit to add:
I can see why anonymity helps the system, but I sure don't want anyone posting my images if they don't meet the requirements of a request--and have people griping, thinking it was me who posted them.


Exactly!

I can see why there is anonymity for the requestor so they don't get pestered, but I think it would be better if the the people posting photos were NOT anonymous. It would probably cut way down on the irrelevant postings.
Gizmo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Feb 4, 2006 8:33PM
I don't like Finders Fee at all.
There is a lot of contributors abuse and much more frustrations for requesters than with tipycal request in forum. And over the top they have to pay a fee for this...
If I'm a buyer I wouldn't like that. First prices are increased and now they have to pay over that instead of keeping good relations and communication between byers and contributors in request forum.
Double_Vision
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:25PM
If I were to submit a finder's fee Buy Request, I'd want to control the number of incoming submissions from the start. As part of the set-up process, I'd want to have fields to designate how many submissions per person I'm willing to accept and how many overall submissions I'm willing to wade through. An example might be:

How many total submissions do you want to review?

Check boxes for: 100 300 500 Unlimited or a field to enter a specific number of your choosing.

How many submissions per individual would you like to allow? Enter a number from 1 to 20: _____

This information would be bold at the bottom of the brief and could be updated at anytime by the submitter to adjust accordingly.

If the submitter's deadline is getting closer and no acceptable images have been submitted because limits have been reached, they can change the numbers upward a bit and allow more choices again. If too many choices are pouring in, they can slow it down and start to limit the number of entries. Those that insist on submitting quantity over quality may find themselves quickly maxed out if the number is adjusted downward.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:44PM
All of the above, plus requestor should definitely have DELETE SUBMITION option while reviewing. Deleted images would not show on the page, but would be queued as submitted, so no re-submition.
This way requestor can keep only relevant images on the page(s) until final decision.
maimai
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Feb 5, 2006 12:44AM
It really is just inviting more grief to not be able to put in quotation marks in "Be Loved" becomes wBe Lovedw

If that is "Man" it becomes wManw and that looks like a typo to anyone...

It has been touch on before, but this is something that really really is noone's fault but iStock's and it needs to be fixed asap

This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 4
Displaying 61 to 67 of 67 matches.
Not a member?Join