Author Topic: Cutcaster cleanup (Read 5160 times)

oboy · « **on:** May 14, 2009, 09:16 »

I had four image rejected today that were approved a long time ago for the reason that this is not what the buyers are looking for. Is Cutcaster starting to cleanup it database by looking again at older approved images?

Milinz · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2009, 09:27 »

Seems they need more space for 39mpix images ;-)

No - sorry that is what they do at Crestock...

Maybe your images was highly priced?

Or maybe they are really LCV...

But why you don't show them here so we can see what is not needed there?

stockastic · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2009, 09:56 »

?
You mean they removed a file of yours that was previously approved?

johngriffin · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2009, 10:03 »

yeah that was me henrik. we have been going through and just trying to clean up some of the older files that were uploaded that we found aren't what our buyers are looking for. you have got a ton of great shots in there but there were a few that were redundant. no hard feelings at all. i probably removed about 300 images that needed to get taken down. if you feel that any of them should have not been removed definitely email me and let me know or reupload them.

i'm just trying to do a little spring cleaning as our traffic grows. thanks for understanding and let me know your thoughts on if i can do it better or removed a file that shouldnt have been removed.

m@m · « **Reply #4 on:** May 14, 2009, 10:07 »

I've not seeing anything like that on my port, as Milinz mention maybe they were really LCV or too highly priced, what I've notice though is sales are starting to come in, and that's great news to me...Well done John, it seems that your hard work is beginning to pay off.

Edited: Well, now we know the answer to the rejected photos (I was still typing when Johns post came in).

tan510jomast · « **Reply #5 on:** May 14, 2009, 10:15 »

Quote from: m@m on May 14, 2009, 10:07

I've not seeing anything like that on my port, as Milinz mention maybe they where really LCV or too highly priced, what I've notice though is sales are starting to come in, and that's great news to me...Well done John, it seems that your hard work is beginning to pay off.

Edited: Well, now we know the answer.

congrats

Quote from: johngriffin on May 14, 2009, 10:03

yeah that was me henrik. we have been going through and just trying to clean up some of the older files that were uploaded that we found aren't what our buyers are looking for. you have got a ton of great shots in there but there were a few that were redundant. no hard feelings at all. i probably removed about 300 images that needed to get taken down. if you feel that any of them should have not been removed definitely email me and let me know or reupload them.

i'm just trying to do a little spring cleaning as our traffic grows. thanks for understanding and let me know your thoughts on if i can do it better or removed a file that shouldnt have been removed.

good to know John. my port is small but if you need to clean it up or adjust the prices to improve saleability, feel free. cheers

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** May 14, 2009, 10:19 »

I guess it's no different than any other retailer deciding what to put on his shelves.

And the time to do it is before you have 5 million photos.

m@m · « **Reply #7 on:** May 14, 2009, 10:26 »

Thanks Tan...

Lcjtripod · « **Reply #8 on:** May 14, 2009, 10:26 »

My hat is off to you John!

I truly wish every site had the balls to remove old unsold and low res images that were OK at the time of upload but fall behind the new stuff being produced today with better cameras and stricter approval rates. Many of the "old" sites have images that were produced with 1 and 2 MP point and snap cameras and the stuff is still there!

Yet in the same breath they have no problem rejecting new stuff shot with high resolution Canon and Nikon's due to "we have enough of that subject"

I have gone over my own portfolio of 3,000 images and deleted 600 of them. Out with the old and in with the new.

-Larry

willie · « **Reply #9 on:** May 14, 2009, 10:31 »

Quote from: Lcjtripod on May 14, 2009, 10:26

My hat is off to you John!

I truly wish every site had the balls to remove old unsold and low res images that were OK at the time of upload but fall behind the new stuff being produced today with better cameras and stricter approval rates. Many of the "old" sites have images that were produced with 1 and 2 MP point and snap cameras and the stuff is still there!

Yet in the same breath they have no problem rejecting new stuff shot with high resolution Canon and Nikon's due to "we have enough of that subject"

I have gone over my own portfolio of 3,000 images and deleted 600 of them. Out with the old and in with the new.

-Larry

Good point. And one heart for Lcjtripod.

oboy · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2009, 17:09 »

Quote from: johngriffin on May 14, 2009, 10:03

yeah that was me henrik. we have been going through and just trying to clean up some of the older files that were uploaded that we found aren't what our buyers are looking for. you have got a ton of great shots in there but there were a few that were redundant. no hard feelings at all. i probably removed about 300 images that needed to get taken down. if you feel that any of them should have not been removed definitely email me and let me know or reupload them.

i'm just trying to do a little spring cleaning as our traffic grows. thanks for understanding and let me know your thoughts on if i can do it better or removed a file that shouldnt have been removed.

John, spring cleaning is ok with me. It's just new for me to have rejections after they are accepted. I think so too that it is important to maintain a clean database.