dustydingo

Maybe the contributor could make it available? It's just that over the past decade or so there have been many dozens of claims of QC incorrectly confusing things like tree bark, textured stone and the like for noise. And to the best of my knowledge every single claim so far, when the image has been presented at 100% for viewing to support the claim, has been been shown by forum members' learned inspection to have been in fact correctly identified by QC as noise. NOt quite the exact same issue, but the one I remember most fondly was the contributor angrily claiming QC were total idiots because they claimed there were dustspots in an image when there clearly (according to the contributor) were none. From memory, forum members pointed out over a dozen dustspots . . . but back to noise. I hoped we might finally have an example where QC could be shown to be interpreting noise where there was none, an issue of some import to many here. DD

Tiffs? . . . and submitted on a DVD/CD? DD

Indeed. If it was as you said "views divided by zooms" we'd all have a very, very, VERY healthy CTR. DD

nearly . . . Zooms divided by Views (x 100) = CTR. DD

I've logged in here about 8 times in the past few months, and only had to do the CAPTCHA tango on one occasion, and that was a few weeks ago . . . obviously not everyone affected equally for some reason. I blame Brexit, MAGA, and the New Zealand cricket team. DD

I'd truly like to see that image at 100%, for future reference and to avoid similar. Is that possible? DD

Trying to determine exactly what' going on here is a tad difficult, so forgive the impudence but I'm going to repeat a question from earlier: what _exactly_ is the message you get when you try to upload? DD

Yep, it takes a lot of work to collate the 100 images--mine are just chucked about randomly as I play with the feature so aren't an example of the 100 images arranged to make that first page look good, but to be honest, a lot of (hard?) work isn't such a negative IMO, especially if I can see some business advantage at the end of it. As for searching for images and putting them in a new gallery, easily done . . . but . . . that too is a lot of work (not really hard). You can create a new gallery, then collate the images in that new gallery by searching using whatever parameters you need, then add the thus found images to that new gallery . . . the work? . . . you can so far only do it one image at a time. But it certainly can be done. DD

? Click the "Reset order to Most Recent" button? DD

As I see it: the Relevant answer is "probably no actual, consistently applied criteria" the Creative answer is "there is an actual, consistently applied criteria" Either way, it appears to be hidden from the perception of we mortal beings. DD

and there I was thinking odious, personal attacks were a thing of the past.in this forum. My resolve to not dish out red arrows is strained. DD

so, moving beyond complaining, what are you suggesting? Lowering the threshold for payment to . . . what? No matter where you set it, someone is going to be stuck just short sometimes, necessitating a sometimes very long wait until they have another image licensed . . . unless you are advocating no threshold? Or perhaps everyone being paid immediately an image has been licensed? On the highly frustrating subject of waiting for payment to be cleared, it's been mentioned here in the past, to save we contributors from much gnashing of teeth or facsimile, Alamy could simply revert to the practise of some very, very big agencies and only report a sale after they (Alamy) have received payment (aka the payment has been cleared). Doesn't address the payment threshold, but certainly removes our frustration of having a sale reported but waiting sometimes ages for it to be cleared. Of course, the nett effect is exactly the same as far as just when that sale is "cleared" for payment, but we'll be less stressed in our ignorance . . . or so that particular theory goes. Not sure I agree, but there you go . . . DD

Wise words. And in the case under discussion, despite many insinuations to the contrary, it was _not_ a case of license misuse. DD

I agree. that's certainly how I interpret it . . . well, that's what it says after all . . . although I have asked Alamy to verify that interpretation, just in case EDIT: oops, I should have added NYCat's post above to my response . . . sorry Paulette DD

I disagree. I think it's much clearer now we have the actual contract wording in our possession. And if there's a point or two that not everybody is clear on, we seek clarification. Easy peasy. DD