Jump to content

IDP

Verified
  • Content Count

    185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

178 Forum reputation = neutral

About IDP

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.dagnall.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Yorkshire

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={1A7B3A54-5516-4DBD-9736-75D0C7B829F5}&name=Ian+Dagnall
  • Images
    0
  • Joined Alamy
    10 Sep 2011
  1. For those who are concerned about this, I queried it with Alamy and they confirmed that, if a Personal Use restriction is in place, then a customer will not be able to order a print by purchasing another license. They're looking at changing the wording. Ian D
  2. This is slightly misleading Keith! A previous test version of the Image Manager did delete duplicate tags, but this was only possible when tags were ordered alphabetically within the tool, something that we reverted back from after further testing and feedback. The version rolled out to those outside the test group has had no code within it at all that removes duplicate tags. If anyone would like to provide examples of this happening and can provide image refs etc for us we will be happy to continue to investigate, but upon clicking save now, there is no code at all in place that
  3. This isn't a new problem but has been occurring ever since all keywords started being shown below a zoomed image. I reported a number of instances to Alamy at the beginning of the year but didn't receive any response. It is, however, just a display problem. The keywords are still there and searchable - I've tested it by removing the missing word from the caption, and the image is still found. Whatever other anomalies you can blame on the new search algorithm, this isn't one of them! Ian D
  4. I think they're right - that it is inevitable and probably impossible to police. However the old search system made this pretty counterproductive. The visible keywords are in alphabetical order, with no indication of which keyword field they're in. There's also no indication of the (previously) all important word order and proximity, which created relevancy. Therefore, it was almost self-policing. Simply copying someone else's keywords would have inevitably resulted in a low rank and low visibility. Sadly, this is no longer the case and it's become a plagiarist's charter. Word order does
  5. It sold for $14.99, which considering the conversion is actually slightly more than the current standard PU price in the UK of £9.99. It was sold in the US though. I'm not sure if $14.99 is the price US clients see? I thought I read that it was now $9.99. Maybe they changed the specifics of the use - I'll look again at the sale details. [Edit] Doesn't look like they changed anything from the defaults. [/edit] Geoff. Thanks Geoff. That's more than mine sold for yesterday but less than Thursday's sale. I just wondered if there had been a bulk deal going on but it seems not. Pea
  6. For those placing restrictions on personal use, I would advise you to beware of an annoying anomaly with batch editing. Whereas with all other fields, no changes are made if the box is left unticked; with the Restriction field, any subsequent batch edit will automatically remove restrictions already in place - unless you redo them. I couldn't understand why my restrictions kept disappearing until I identified this annoying problem. Ian D
  7. I think a clear indication of abuse is the appearance of some of these personal use sales in Customer Search Activity (Measures). If these were genuine, one-off licenses by Joe Public, the data for searches and sales shouldn't be registering - not to mention the unsuitability of much of the content for personal use. Ian D
  8. Which obviously needed a bit of help. Or is this too cynical? wim Cynical and probably wrong. The Trust commissioned photographers when I was shooting NT property for local estate managers in the 90s and I'm sure long before. They have their own publications and so have long needed photography. In the 90s there was concern over articles about gardens which couldn't cope with influxes of visitors, the one I mainly shot was one example (though parking facilites are now well improved). I fail to see the relevance of that comment, Geoff. Wim was undoubtedly referring to the fact that th
  9. A few years ago, I became vaguely aware of the National Trust's rather draconian policy on photography and, as with many others here, it caused me some concern. Up until that time, I never considered who owned or ran a property of historical interest - I'd just go along, pay my entrance fee and, if I wanted to, take photographs. Naturally, over the years, I submitted a number of these to Alamy. I wasn't a member of the National Trust and didn't take much interest in it. As I say, a few years ago I did become aware of their photography policy, largely due to a number of discussions on the A
  10. Quality was excellent. Moreover, it was an archival image, with the prominent warning about quality. Seems an obvious case of somebody wanting something for nothing. Ian D
  11. Whilst not approving of Alamy's personal use license, I have to accept that a buyer can abuse any low-cost license and so putting restrictions on one's whole collection would prove pointless. However, what is worrying, is the ability for the buyer to get a refund on a personal license - which I've just had. It was apparently refunded because the customer complained of poor image quality. This is totally unacceptable and these cheap licenses should never be refunded. Even if the intended use was genuine, the buyer has ended up with a high resolution file, the usage for which can never be ve
  12. The reason is that you've said you're using a 4k monitor. Because of the pixel density, you need to view at 200% to get the equivalent of 100% on a standard monitor. Hope this helps Ian D
  13. Regarding timing of re-ranks, there was one on 13th June last year and then, somewhat inexplicably, another one on 30th July. There was a brief thread on the forum that mentioned it but that was closed by Alamy (http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/4375-bhz/page-1#entry73245). After every re-rank, I take screenshots of the first page of BHZ and the changes in July were fairly substantial. There hasn't been one since then. Regarding MS's response to Philippe, that simply isn't the case in respect of the Relevant tab. Like Pearl, I've also done tests with different images and it doe
  14. If anybody is interested, there seems to have been a re-rank today for the first time since July 30th last year. Ian D
  15. In some ways, this does seem to be a solution looking for a problem. Whilst I can see that Alamy want to try and get rid of a number of confusing and unprofessional pseudonyms, it does ignore the reason why some people use pseudonyms in the first place. Where many simply use them as a way of splitting their images into discrete collections, there must be a sizeable minority who use them to remain anonymous. A couple of my early aliases were established for this very reason - one because of commercial confidentiality and another to prevent possible retaliation for having taken politically s
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.