Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Hey Guys,
Just wanted to post a thread in here to open up discussion on Photo of the Day and the Splash Page. A few of you guys have some questions regarding how photos get picked, what dimensions your photos need to have to be selected, as well as some comments regarding the splash page. So lets use this thread to condense information!
KrotchJamie, correct me on this if I am wrong, but i know it has to be at least 1000px wide. Most photographers photos end up being MUCH larger (roughly 3000x2000 or so) unless cropped down
I think the width has to be much wider than 1000px, which confused me when a photo of mine wasn't picked but both dimensions were over 1000px. I'll let Doug/Jason give us specifics.
The referenced post has been removed.
Refresh your cache and the scroll bars will work. Nothing else is ripped out.
The disappearing thing is a touch harder, we're working on it. Those little bugs will be addressed within 30 minutes or something like that as we catch them.
The main question is - do you like the concept?
Wait until a vertical photo comes up its pretty cool what we did.
pussyfooterNew page looks great guys! I like it a lot
You'll like the vertical one better. As you can see in the image above, we solved the vertical photo issue by adding a big news of the day and video of the day module. This will mean that when its a vertical photo, our journalists and producers are going to get some mega love.
RileySnyderPhotoSo what I understand is that photos with 1000px min it cannot make cover? That seems silly to me especially since I do not post above that on the net because of many issues I've had with images getting stolen and other infringement issues.
Well the bottom line is that resolutions are getting bigger and this spot needs a photo that big to go into it. If we were to take smaller we'd have to stretch it or make the size different. Not going to work, bottom line.
We had a bit of a hiatus of the photographer monetization program on the site this year, but that was only temporary. You guys are still going to get paid for getting into the yearbook, and next year we have all the programs launched and solid so you'll be able to make cash off the photo views.
Anyway - the idea is to give a better place for the obit it's to express themselves, and contribute to a more developed system that we can build off the monetization side of things.
Mr.BishopWell the bottom line is that resolutions are getting bigger and this spot needs a photo that big to go into it. If we were to take smaller we'd have to stretch it or make the size different. Not going to work, bottom line.We had a bit of a hiatus of the photographer monetization program on the site this year, but that was only temporary. You guys are still going to get paid for getting into the yearbook, and next year we have all the programs launched and solid so you'll be able to make cash off the photo views.
I don't think that is the bottom line at all. Changing the minimum resolution will have a great impact, and it's imperative to tell us photographers what resolution our photos need to be, sounds pretty simple to me. The lack of clarity has already caused confusion and missed POTD's for photographer like Jamie and myself.
The issue of image security is also very important to address. Like Riley, I don't post images online greater than 1000px on the long side, for image security. There would have to be a large incentive for me to do otherwise, because dealing with stolen images sucks.
As for the photographers program, thanks for telling us about the monetization, or lack thereof.... oh wait, definitely was never told that. The lack of transparency and communication has been really poor, but that's a discussion for another time and place.
SklarI don't think that is the bottom line at all. Changing the minimum resolution will have a great impact, and it's imperative to tell us photographers what resolution our photos need to be, sounds pretty simple to me. The lack of clarity has already caused confusion and missed POTD's for photographer like Jamie and myself.The issue of image security is also very important to address. Like Riley, I don't post images online greater than 1000px on the long side, for image security. There would have to be a large incentive for me to do otherwise, because dealing with stolen images sucks.
I can understand where you want the photos big Doug but so do the people that steal our images. Honestly it isn't worth the risk to be posting that large for the chance of POTD which may or may not bring a few more views. The program has a bit of a way to go to get me to post photos at higher resolution without watermarking and precautions taken against unauthorized use. The majority of people I know rarely see images on anything higher than a 1080p screen and with viewing a 3:2 ration image, there wont be a way to have full screen without cropping or adding bars and usually keeping the size down decreases the load time.
To be honest, the new splash page feels very 2008-ish...or at least it does when viewing it on a 24" 1080 monitor. I don't necessarily mind the layout, but I think the design just really need to be responsive...I want the info box to fill my screen completely so I can see the image as big as possible.
Also something that bothers me....when I click the photo, logically it should take me to the picture's page and not the home page. It made more sense when the image took up the entirety of the view in the last version (not that I found that to be a good solution).
But most importantly is if you are going to continue to use user provided content on the homepage, and you incentives up to post out pictures by having us on content teams and monetizing us by the number of views, you NEED to start counting home page views in to the number of photo views.
The data actually suggests that there was only a certain point in time where home page views where counted towards pictures views:
ItoBut most importantly is if you are going to continue to use user provided content on the homepage, and you incentives up to post out pictures by having us on content teams and monetizing us by the number of views, you NEED to start counting home page views in to the number of photo views.
Yes the splash page used to count views on pictures and they would get around 30'000-50'000 views.
Now that there is the monetizing program, the money has to come from somewhere and unfortunately there isn't any ads on the splash page, therefore you views on your picture doesn't actually generate any money for NS.
But I like this new splash page, it's clean and simple.
RileySnyderPhotoSo what I understand is that photos with 1000px min it cannot make cover? That seems silly to me especially since I do not post above that on the net because of many issues I've had with images getting stolen and other infringement issues.
For those worrying about your image being stolen, use a watermark -- nothing stops you from doing so, and it means even more exposure for you and your brand.
Also, who is stealing your images and for what purpose? Can you provide an example? And why wouldn't they steal it if it was 900px wide instead of say, 1280px wide? Would they still steal it with a watermark? I'm just curious because a bunch of photographers do share their high res online.
[URL]http://www.adamclarkphoto.com/[/URL]
SklarAs for the photographers program, thanks for telling us about the monetization, or lack thereof....
Sklar, yeah it sucks that the photo program didn't run this winter -- but remember the year it did? IMO it was a total disaster and the system was completely flawed as one member took advantage of it and completely screwed the rest of them.
Also note we sent and paid our top rated journalist from the past year to Sochi to cover the Olympics on our behalf, which put a huge dent in our content budgets.
At the moment, one Yearbook spread will net you more than each photographer made with the photo program when it ran, and IMO that's some decent incentive. With that being said, the program will be making a comeback next year.
MousseauFor those worrying about your image being stolen, use a watermark -- nothing stops you from doing so, and it means even more exposure for you and your brand.Also, who is stealing your images and for what purpose? Can you provide an example? And why wouldn't they steal it if it was 900px wide instead of say, 1280px wide? Would they still steal it with a watermark? I'm just curious because a bunch of photographers do share their high res online.
[URL]http://www.adamclarkphoto.com/[/URL]
Maybe it was just from a few years back when I was told not to watermark for anything used in articles. We obviously have changed since then. As for the long side I keep it at 1000 because it is less likely for someone to use an image in print 3 inches on the long side for monetary gain. The web is a different deal and two big ones that have used my images without permission for gain would be FD Wear and Bolle. I ran into this huge issue when I was the photo intern for Windells when they wanted no watermarks. I do watermark and did back then but they made me not do it for their web use which I understand. As for posting on their own site, that makes sense and mine will be higher resolution on my site too. I just limit it where I don't have control over it as much.
MousseauSklar, yeah it sucks that the photo program didn't run this winter -- but remember the year it did? IMO it was a total disaster and the system was completely flawed as one member took advantage of it and completely screwed the rest of them.Also note we sent and paid our top rated journalist from the past year to Sochi to cover the Olympics on our behalf, which put a huge dent in our content budgets.
At the moment, one Yearbook spread will net you more than each photographer made with the photo program when it ran, and IMO that's some decent incentive. With that being said, the program will be making a comeback next year.
Good to know, as a total noob to photography even this "non-program" has been really good. I'm stoked to hopefully participate again next year!
MousseauSklar, yeah it sucks that the photo program didn't run this winter -- but remember the year it did? IMO it was a total disaster and the system was completely flawed as one member took advantage of it and completely screwed the rest of them.Also note we sent and paid our top rated journalist from the past year to Sochi to cover the Olympics on our behalf, which put a huge dent in our content budgets.
At the moment, one Yearbook spread will net you more than each photographer made with the photo program when it ran, and IMO that's some decent incentive. With that being said, the program will be making a comeback next year.
Absolutely, the program was flawed and we all know that.
I have more thoughts, but I'll share those later and privately when I get the chance to put them into writing
joris.blancYes the splash page used to count views on pictures and they would get around 30'000-50'000 views.Now that there is the monetizing program, the money has to come from somewhere and unfortunately there isn't any ads on the splash page, therefore you views on your picture doesn't actually generate any money for NS.
But I like this new splash page, it's clean and simple.
It's up to NS to figure out how to monetize the website in the way they see fit - the people generating content should not take the hit because NS failed to figure out how to do so in an effective way. If those of us in the content creation programs are being paid based on how much that content is seen, it shouldn't matter as to what page it is seen on.
On that note, I honestly don't care about being paid for creating photo content. I don't know how other people in the content creation areas feel about this, but it certainly isn't a reason that I get out the camera.
RileySnyderPhotoMaybe it was just from a few years back when I was told not to watermark for anything used in articles. We obviously have changed since then. As for the long side I keep it at 1000 because it is less likely for someone to use an image in print 3 inches on the long side for monetary gain. The web is a different deal and two big ones that have used my images without permission for gain would be FD Wear and Bolle. I ran into this huge issue when I was the photo intern for Windells when they wanted no watermarks. I do watermark and did back then but they made me not do it for their web use which I understand. As for posting on their own site, that makes sense and mine will be higher resolution on my site too. I just limit it where I don't have control over it as much.
Stuff in articles would be covered when we pay you for that stuff. I'd imagine that you got contracted by Jeff to cover something, and in that case yes he would ask for no watermarks and this would be part of that coverage contract. Anything you are contributing to the user-generated content pools on the site is completely yours to do with what you please. I think massive watermarks are dumb, but its completely up to you. You use those systems for whatever reason you wish, whether to work towards a monetized photo in the yearbook, work towards monetizing on Newschoolers or to self promote as a photographer.
Its a great issue to bring up about photo theft. Its a massive problem all across the internet - as is the problem that photographers don't realize their signing over the rights to their photos when they upload to services like Facebook and Instagram. Rights management is a disaster, and we all need to wake up and work towards a system that pushes compensation vs. paranoid hoarding of photos that never go anywhere.
Do you ever pirate software? Have you ever stolen music? Ever watched a pirated movie? If so, then you've done the same to other content creators and collectively we need a new model. The right answer isn't to hoard though and do nothing - we must face the new reality of an open sharing internet.
SklarAbsolutely, the program was flawed and we all know that.I have more thoughts, but I'll share those later and privately when I get the chance to put them into writing
Please, lets open up this discussion in the photographer cult. Exactly what its for. I've got great ideas for all three programs, and I think we can fix them up and have everything launch in a nice timely manner for next season.
ItoIt's up to NS to figure out how to monetize the website in the way they see fit - the people generating content should not take the hit because NS failed to figure out how to do so in an effective way. If those of us in the content creation programs are being paid based on how much that content is seen, it shouldn't matter as to what page it is seen on.On that note, I honestly don't care about being paid for creating photo content. I don't know how other people in the content creation areas feel about this, but it certainly isn't a reason that I get out the camera.
MASSIVE mis-conception here. These programs are not direct payments for views, they are revenue share based off of advertising that runs on your content. We split the rev we make 50/50 with the content contributor - so when ads don't run on a page there is no rev split to be paid - just like we don't make any revenue off the page.
Also note, views on the Splash page do count. The difference is whether the splash page is displayed to all visitors by default or not - that what is accounting for the major discrepancies. Most of you guys probably have this setting chosen in your account so you never notice the difference. Note, just yesterday it was re-enabled by default so view counts will jump immensely.
Also finally the splash page views were paid last year. We put that in as an incentive and basically said the same logic - where we needed to figure out monetization and we wanted compensation for the guys who got the gold.
Do also note the biggest reason that the photography program was on hold this year is that photographers got paid the lions share of the yearbook contributor budget. Every time you put a photo in the system, its a contribution towards the yearbook and if you get in there you get paid pretty good. I admit, this was flawed overall logic, and something we'll address.
