StatsPrime - stats, lightboxes (Win, Mac)

Displaying 221 to 240 of 335 matches.
matthewleesdixon
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 contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:30AM

iStats plus is reporting my sales for the last 12 months as 7% higher in $ than the istock stats. Before the update to the latest version (istats ) and the clean fetch it was reporting 14% higher dollars.


Dates are from 1st Jan 2012 to now.


Does anyone know if this is an istats bug or if istock is owing a payout?
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:39AM

hi matthew - SP should show the same numbers as istock, so if it really shows you 7% more, it is might be a bug. however, please be aware of the following: the "monthly" view on the istock site is currently not showing GI sales, although the GI sales are displayed correctly if you switch to daily view. (this affects all years, not only 2012)


are you sure you're looking at the right numbers? if yes, can you somehow identify what is "extra" in SP? is it certain types of sales (e.g. GI or PP sales)? also: when did you last do a clean fetch? (there were some bugs related to credit-card sales on the site, which were fixed at the beginning of november)
matthewleesdixon
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 contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:39PM
Your right it's the Getty sales missing from the iStock stats. Great bit of software, very useful.
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:57AM

update: v1 is now available! please check the OP.

please download and install v1, as i will shut down all beta versions.


 


ETA: upgrading from beta3 to v1 does not require you to do a clean fetch.

(Edited on 2012-11-15 02:00:42 by nullplus)
anchev
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:16AM
Good luck null!
Leadinglights
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:33PM
Great program but will not be buying as it is overpriced for someone like me with a large portfolio who just needs the basic program. This is a shame as I would really like to support the work that has been done on this excellent software but the difference in price is too great. I have a portfolio of 1800 images so would have to pay $89 intead of $19. Too big a jump - sorry.


 

(Edited on 2012-11-16 14:38:41 by Leadinglights)
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:26AM
the previous license names seemed to cause a lot of confusion, as they made it seem that (e.g.) a "silver contributor" needs a "silver license". this is/was not true. to clear this up, the available licenses have been renamed to basic / advanced / pro / ultimate.
antb
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 Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Audio downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:04PM

I currently have less than 1500 files and think $39 is very reasonable for this, but what happens when I go over 1500, do I need to pay the extra $50?
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:38AM
yes. you will then need an upgrade license - those are listed in the store which you can reach through my site.
Kerrick
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:31AM

I dont understand why a buyer must pay more if the portfolio is growing and not by the function of the program? Im sure there is a plan behind this, but I would only need the basic-statistic funktion and for this I dont want to pay 90$.


Unfortunatelly the program is not sorted by function (yes, more function in higher prices, but I dont need this funktions), but by PF size.


good luck


sorry for my english


 
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:38AM

there seems to be a lot of discussion on the pricing-by-pf-size on this and other forums (and yes, i did read the german one, too ). while i normally don't feel it makes much sense to comment / justify prices, let me say the following:


software is very often priced not by features, but by the (economic) gain of the user. have a look at ms office, where you can get a "home & student" license for roughly 120EUR, or a "home & business" for 250 or a "pro" for 500. there are some differences in features there, but not as much as to justify the price increase. the increase is based solely on the fact that one user will make money out of it, and the other not (or not as much). similar goes for photoshop: you can get a commercial license for a lot of money, or an educational license for a fraction of the price. this is again solely based on the advantage and profit a user will make by using the software, not on the software itself. this is common practice.


i am aware that PF size does not correlate directly to your income, and that if you have 3000 files, you will not necessarily make twice as much as when you had 1500. however, there is a general correlation and the size of your PF definitely is an indication of how serious you are about stock and the amount of time (and money) you invest into creating content.


> I dont understand why a buyer must pay more if the portfolio is growing


the other way of putting this question would be: "why should a buyer pay less when they have fewer files". if you look at other stats apps out there, you will actually see that even the SP "ultimate" license is very affordable, by comparison. that said, i know you guys would like to see prices drop by at least 60% but i can tell you this won't happen, not even during sales events, which sure will come once in a while. if there were a million istock contributors out there, i could have gone for lower per-piece prices. with only a few thousand, i can't.


(i'll translate this and post the same in the german forum. some other people there wonder the same thing )
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:03AM
Much like micro (used to be), a low, reasonable price would likely gather more buyers. A greedy "you're making more, so I want more" approach is not likely to fly. I think you're already seeing that. Deepmeta doesn't work that way. Heck, DM is free. But I'd pay for that as it is truly indispensable. A stats program is not really needed.
MichaelJay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:44AM
Posted By sjlocke:
Much like micro (used to be), a low, reasonable price would likely gather more buyers. A greedy "you're making more, so I want more" approach is not likely to fly. I think you're already seeing that. Deepmeta doesn't work that way. Heck, DM is free. But I'd pay for that as it is truly indispensable. A stats program is not really needed.


I fully agree. The comparison with DM is quite unfair, of course, but in the end DM is a part of the workflow while any stats tool is never going to help to shoot, process or upload more or better images, so for me the business value is quite limited.


Obviously it's the producer's decision to make the pricing and I'm not in a position to judge if your decisions are right or wrong to optimize your income from this. But as a potential buyer I can just compare that I paid around $ 95 for my latest version of Lightroom (upgrade) and in comparison paying $89 for a stats software just is far more than I will get out of it. And we would have to buy two licenses in our house as we are two separate producers...


Sorry but this is a clear no for me. Good luck anyways.
lostinbids
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:45AM
Posted By nullplus:

there seems to be a lot of discussion on the pricing-by-pf-size on this and other forums (and yes, i did read the german one, too wink). while i normally don't feel it makes much sense to comment / justify prices, let me say the following:


software is very often priced not by features, but by the (economic) gain of the user. have a look at ms office, where you can get a "home & student" license for roughly 120EUR, or a "home & business" for 250 or a "pro" for 500. there are some differences in features there, but not as much as to justify the price increase. the increase is based solely on the fact that one user will make money out of it, and the other not (or not as much). similar goes for photoshop: you can get a commercial license for a lot of money, or an educational license for a fraction of the price. this is again solely based on the advantage and profit a user will make by using the software, not on the software itself. this is common practice.


i am aware that PF size does not correlate directly to your income, and that if you have 3000 files, you will not necessarily make twice as much as when you had 1500. however, there is a general correlation and the size of your PF definitely is an indication of how serious you are about stock and the amount of time (and money) you invest into creating content.


> I dont understand why a buyer must pay more if the portfolio is growing


the other way of putting this question would be: "why should a buyer pay less when they have fewer files". if you look at other stats apps out there, you will actually see that even the SP "ultimate" license is very affordable, by comparison. that said, i know you guys would like to see prices drop by at least 60% but i can tell you this won't happen, not even during sales events, which sure will come once in a while. if there were a million istock contributors out there, i could have gone for lower per-piece prices. with only a few thousand, i can't.


(i'll translate this and post the same in the german forum. some other people there wonder the same thing wink)

So when is the 'sales events' coming, I might wait until then
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:07AM
Posted By lostinbids:

So when is the 'sales events' coming, I might wait until then smile


i'll definitely let you know on the day they start


and since today is a day i can also tell you: it won't be today. or this week.
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:54AM

as there seem to be quite a few users who only want the stats stuff, but not the lb and e+ management, i will add "stats only" licenses for medium & big ports, too. obviously, these will be cheaper than the current fully featured versions.


it will take a while to implement this - the update will probably come end of this / beginning of next week.
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:16AM

update:

  • v1.1.0 is now available for download. this fixes a few minor bugs and adds support for the new license options:
  • 2 new license options are available: these offer a "stats-only" version (no lightbox management and no photo+/e+ management) for medium and large portfolios
  • the portfolio size limit for "small portfolios" has been raised from 1500 to 2000 files. people who already have a license for this level (ie "base" or "bronze") will also profit from these new limits, provided you update to v1.1.0


see statsprime.photonullplus.de for details
antb
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 Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Audio downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:15AM
thanks for the changes to the license options, makes a purchase much more tempting! Is it possible to make an addition to the next version / update so we can view files by titles instead of file numbers?  Reason being that when viewing audio files all the thumbs are the same and you only have the file number to go on, so no idea which file is which, unless I am missing a trick here?  Thanks again.
nullplus
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:16AM
that's a good point with the audio files. not being an audio contributor, i never thought about this, but what you say makes perfect sense. i'll put this on the list for the next update.
anchev
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:59PM
I don't know if this has been suggested:

It would be nice to be able to select a group of files and right-click to add them to a new/existing folder and/or lightbox.

Also for the views in E+/P+ part. I wanted to add some files I moved to E+ to a folder/LB but I found there is no such function. It would also be useful to have the number of files shown in each view. 
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 221 to 240 of 335 matches.
Not a member?Join