Thursday, June 2, 2011

New Space

long overdue space for you...

2,452 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1801 – 2000 of 2452   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

To mistype "position" as "poison" once is one thing but also kind of odd. Notice that it is more than one skipped letter or two inverted letters like typos often are. But also, the same "typo" is repeated below her title, TWICE. Do you think English might not be her native language? It just looks odd to me.
------------

Most non native English speakers who live in English speaking countries try to make a big effort to get it right, it would be rare for them to mistype and misspell the way this person does. She is, to me, clearly born and bred to the English language but had a very poor education.

Anonymous said...

She's from Louisiana. A few months ago when people commented on her blog about her bad spelling and grammar, she blamed it on the high school she went to and that there was nothing she could do about it. She almost seemed proud of her deficiencies.
-----------

How lame is that? I wasn't even born in an English speaking country and I would be ashamed of those errors. Some people have no pride at all.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised how some designers are going "all in" while they might need to hold off a bit. This designer (Lovely Creation) is just starting (or so it looks) and she already has a CT and a CT manager. Wow!!! I have been designing for years and I still don't have a CT manager (maybe I should?). I don't know. What do you think?

Anonymous said...

I am surprised how some designers are going "all in" while they might need to hold off a bit. This designer (Lovely Creation) is just starting (or so it looks) and she already has a CT and a CT manager. Wow!!! I have been designing for years and I still don't have a CT manager (maybe I should?). I don't know. What do you think?
July 13, 2011 6:57 AM

-----------------
I've been designing for years and don't have one either. Never have. I don't see the point. I can clearly tell who is downloading my products and who is making LOs with my products. Why would I take the extra time to bring another person into that loop?

I think many designers do it to have an entourage. I'm not that much of a diva.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised how some designers are going "all in" while they might need to hold off a bit. This designer (Lovely Creation) is just starting (or so it looks) and she already has a CT and a CT manager. Wow!!! I have been designing for years and I still don't have a CT manager (maybe I should?). I don't know. What do you think?
July 13, 2011 6:57 AM

I don't have a CT so don't need a CT manager. Designers don't realize with their horde of CT members that they are giving out their kits left and right so who is buying them?? I'd rather sell a kit 10 times then give it out to 10 CT members. Maybe my thinking is flawed. Plus look how many kits are winding up on pirating sites because these people have a CT who isn't honest and likes to share!!! There are dishonest CT out there then you would believe.

Anonymous said...

Should have been there are more dishonest CT out there then you would believe. Fingers typing to fast

Anonymous said...

From SDD designer call.

Our monthly server fee is just per month server fee.

HUH? Now THAT is redundant. (And insane. Really - you are taking 15-25% of a designer's earnings AND you want a monthly fee??)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
To mistype "position" as "poison" once is one thing but also kind of odd. Notice that it is more than one skipped letter or two inverted letters like typos often are. But also, the same "typo" is repeated below her title, TWICE. Do you think English might not be her native language? It just looks odd to me.

July 13, 2011 4:57 AM

----------------

It's just that the education system in the USA sucks! Foreigners learn English correctly.

I would blame it on her IQ, not high school.

Anonymous said...

The US education system as a whole might not be the best possible, but it's not bad enough ANYWHERE to create a person who would mistype "position" as "poison" multiple times (thus signaling that it wasn't just a crazy typo). Even if she was educated in the worst district in the US, the fault lies solely on her own shoulders for being THAT BAD at grammar/spelling/common sense.

Anonymous said...

From SDD designer call.

Our monthly server fee is just per month server fee.

HUH? Now THAT is redundant. (And insane. Really - you are taking 15-25% of a designer's earnings AND you want a monthly fee??)

-----------

Yes! That IS redundant. Thanks for using the word correctly. FINALLY! LMAO. Hopefully some other folks around here will take your lead.

Anonymous said...

About Lovely Creations, I don't know about you but for me I'd rather not criticize her spelling/grammar mistakes. I think she might suffer from dyslexia. The repetitive errors in her blog look like more than just neglect, lack of common sense, or bad education. Maybe she really couldn't help it.

Anonymous said...

^^^^
That IS a possibility but if she is aware of such a challenge, I think she would consider asking for a proofreader. I have a colleague at work who KNOWS her spelling is bad but she will always ask someone to check before she sends out an email or makes a handout or so.

Another possibility... could she be using an auto-correct and not know the difference? I find odd that the same "spelling error" would be the same three times, whether you have dyslexia or not. After all, "position" and "poison" don't even have the same number of syllables. Darn auto-correct?

Anonymous said...

With "Jetpack" on wordpress, she has the availability of a pretty good proofreader. She's just too lazy.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a CT so don't need a CT manager. Designers don't realize with their horde of CT members that they are giving out their kits left and right so who is buying them?? I'd rather sell a kit 10 times then give it out to 10 CT members. Maybe my thinking is flawed. Plus look how many kits are winding up on pirating sites because these people have a CT who isn't honest and likes to share!!! There are dishonest CT out there then you would believe.
________________________________

I agree. I don't have a CT either and I'm not sure I ever want one. After I make a kit and sometimes while I'm making one, I scrap with it to make sure everything goes together - the colors, style, etc. I then use those layouts as examples.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there is anything wrong with a small CT. Like 5 people. These designers that have 20 or more CT members are just ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there is anything wrong with a small CT. Like 5 people. These designers that have 20 or more CT members are just ridiculous.

July 13, 2011 5:46 PM
------------

I don't think there is anything wrong with a large CT either. Why is it ridiculous to have a large CT? If you are selling enough kits to make you happy, does it matter if your CT is big or small?

Anonymous said...

Yes! That IS redundant. Thanks for using the word correctly. FINALLY! LMAO. Hopefully some other folks around here will take your lead.
---

What, like this - having rules in place that nobody follows is redundant.

Anonymous said...

About Lovely Creations, I don't know about you but for me I'd rather not criticize her spelling/grammar mistakes. I think she might suffer from dyslexia. The repetitive errors in her blog look like more than just neglect, lack of common sense, or bad education. Maybe she really couldn't help it.
------

No go. I'm dyslexic so I make extra sure of my spelling. Sometimes the errors get through, sometimes not, but I make the effort.

Anonymous said...

Yes! That IS redundant. Thanks for using the word correctly. FINALLY! LMAO. Hopefully some other folks around here will take your lead.
---

What, like this - having rules in place that nobody follows is redundant.

^^^^^^^^^^^
OMG, seriously, you are the world's biggest idiot. Wait, no, I am sure there is at least one bigger than you, but you absolutely place in the top 5.

Anonymous said...

Why is the OP an idiot? Because you don't agree with her?

Anonymous said...

OMG, seriously, you are the world's biggest idiot. Wait, no, I am sure there is at least one bigger than you, but you absolutely place in the top 5.
--------

Yeah, you. Congratulations.

Anonymous said...

Why is the OP an idiot? Because you don't agree with her?

-------------

No, you stupid fucksticks. Having rules in place that nobody follows, in itself, is not redundant. Now, if those rules were in place multiple times, THAT would be redundant. Unless the rules were stated over and over again, and over yet again, and still not followed, well, one set of rules cannot be redundant. One set of rules can be pointless, if not enforced. But it's basically impossible for one set of rules to be redundant.

By the way, everyone here is redundant for continuing this conversation. Sorry, decided it was time for me to step in and help end this. And yet, sadly, I know that I won't be ending anything because this will just invite more idiocy. *sigh*

Anonymous said...

Just came across this person on DST, was curious, and clicked over to their site. Who the heck is this? She says she's starting over from scratch with a new design name, which screams there's something to hide.

http://monkeymeshdesigns.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Just came across this person on DST, was curious, and clicked over to their site. Who the heck is this? She says she's starting over from scratch with a new design name, which screams there's something to hide.

http://monkeymeshdesigns.blogspot.com/

^^^

She has a facebook link (Tamara van Wijk) - I googled her name and she is formerly known as TotallyD Designs

http://totallyddesigns.blogspot.com/

And according to Twitter - pixelpisces (old blog no longer working):
http://twitter.com/#!/pixelpisces

Anonymous said...

No, you stupid fucksticks.
-----

You lost your argument right there.

Anonymous said...

Now, if those rules were in place multiple times, THAT would be redundant.
--------

Ah, but they were. You proved my point, thank you.

Anonymous said...

She says she's starting over from scratch with a new design name, which screams there's something to hide.
----------

The paranoia and conspiracy ideas displayed on this blog are truly amazing.

Anonymous said...

Just came across this person on DST, was curious, and clicked over to their site. Who the heck is this? She says she's starting over from scratch with a new design name, which screams there's something to hide.

http://monkeymeshdesigns.blogspot.com/
-----------

Next time, put on a warning label. My eyes are melting.

Anonymous said...

Just came across this person on DST, was curious, and clicked over to their site. Who the heck is this? She says she's starting over from scratch with a new design name, which screams there's something to hide.

http://monkeymeshdesigns.blogspot.com/
-----------
I wished she had stayed hidden, god awful from top to bottom!! and she thinks she has skills & taste?

Anonymous said...

Somebody was looking for a "Sponge Bob"ish kit. Here's a magnificent answer:

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/2935719-post6.html

Anonymous said...

^^^^

It would have been, except she's being serious.

Anonymous said...

I wished she had stayed hidden, god awful from top to bottom!! and she thinks she has skills & taste?
-----

How do you know what the thinks? I know she mentions designing skills on her blog, but taste?

Anonymous said...

Now, if those rules were in place multiple times, THAT would be redundant.
--------

Ah, but they were. You proved my point, thank you.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, no, and no. I've read the rules that were posted for round 3 of TDF, and they were listed once. ONCE. The rules themselves were not redundant.

Besides, your original argument (many, many posts ago) was basically as follows (though I am paraphrasing): "if the rules aren't going to be enforced, they're redundant".

The only one proving anyone else's points is you... proving that you don't understand the semantics behind this argument.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

It does not just mean repetitive, it also means unnecessary. A meaning, which for some inexplicable reason, is being overlooked by some on this blog.

The rules are unnecessary, and therefore redundant, if no one is following them.


How hard is that to understand?

Semantics? Seriously?

Anonymous said...

Yes, semantics. SERIOUSLY. OMG.

"Redundant" doesn't mean "unnecessary". There IS a component of "unnecessary" involved, yes, but only due to "needless repetition".

Again, from the most well-known dictionary available:

Definition of REDUNDANT
1 a - exceeding what is necessary or normal - superfluous
b - characterized by or containing an excess; specifically - using more words than necessary
c - characterized by similarity or repetition (a group of particularly redundant brick buildings)
d chiefly British - no longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2 - profuse, lavish
3 - serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

Anonymous said...

More from Merriam-Webster:

Examples of REDUNDANT

1. He edited the paper and removed any redundant information or statements.
2. Avoid redundant expressions in your writing.
3. Some people say that since all adages are old, the phrase “old adage” is redundant.
4. The drone had originally been designed to go places the Blackbird could not, but it had become redundant on discovery of the fact that there was nowhere the SR-71 could not go in safety … —Tom Clancy, The Cardinal of the Kremlin, 1989

Anonymous said...

Notice how, in each of the above examples (from the frikkin' dictionary), the word redundant DOES have a relation to "unnecessary"... but how, in all cases, it's because there is repetition or excess. The only reason each example is "unnecessary" is because of repetition/excess. Not just due to being unnecessary, alone.

Anonymous said...

In the case of the TDF rules, there was no excess. No duplicate rules. Nothing of the sort. The original argument, here on this blog, was that the rules were "redundant" because (a) nobody was following them, and (b) nobody was enforcing them. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE RULES REDUNDANT. It makes them unnecessary (or pointless, as someone else has phrased it here, previously)... but NOT redundant. Because there was no "excess" of rules, and/or no "needlessly repetition" of the rules.

Yes, I have spent WAY too much time explaining this to you (whoever you are out there, with a lack of understanding of this word). Blame it on the fact that I used to teach. But I can't STAND that you are arguing this point, when you are so very, very, very wrong about this word. It's absolutely infuriating. At what point will you just admit that you made a mistake?

Anonymous said...

sorry, that should have been "needless repetition"... fingers typing too fast.

Anonymous said...

As a former teacher, you should know you can't fix stupid.

Moving back to scrapbooking...

Challenge 4 @ The Design Factor (most recent entry is Lizard Dau)

What I downloaded:

Millie Dee - Sadly, she's not sure if she met the requirements for this challenge. Well, I can tell you that a striped paper isn't a solid, honey. But that aside, I think the alpha is adorable. The color palette is nice, but I wish she made one more pop of red in the elements. I'll also delete the hoochie flair, but the other doodles are cute. After downloading, WTH is the stamp on the side of the t-shirt frame? Completely ridiculous. Make that its own element. I don't care for the paper texture, either. Looks like the anti-skid stuff you use in your glass cabinets. Paper patterns are average.


Other comments:

Just Jaimee - She showed some promise the first 2 rounds, but her entry in round 3 was terrible and her round 4 entry is completely pointless.

Amanda Carlson - Her round 4 entry looks fine quality wise, but the color palette is gross. I'm also not a Cancer so I have no use for it.

Mandy King - Probably the best looking thing I've ever seen her make. Granted, it's not saying much...

Lizard Dau - Not only is it beyond hideous, but she's "Raver #63" which made me LOL.

SugarKissed - The kit is cute, but I have no use for it. I like the sanded chipboard pieces. I think it's very cute how she integrated the shape into the wave border.

Anonymous said...

As a former teacher, you should know you can't fix stupid.

---------

I know, I know. No idea why I keep trying. But if I can reach just ONE PERSON... LOL.

Anonymous said...

http://monkeymeshdesigns.blogspot.com/
-----------
I wished she had stayed hidden, god awful from top to bottom!! and she thinks she has skills & taste?

---------
The blog has been removed.

Anonymous said...

^^^

Well, we took care of axing that one really fast, huh.

Anonymous said...

Good heavens, the August blog train color palette is posted. It's hideous.

http://gi136.photobucket.com/groups/q189/RI6654ZCQS/2011-August-Swatch.jpg

Anonymous said...

^^^

Strange, but it does look sorta ugly now... but in the designer forum at DST (where Trish had people vote on it), it was suggested by another designer and it rather looked sweet/pleasant. In fact, almost everyone in that thread voted that way, I think? She had it posted along w/ an inspiration photo, and maybe that showed how it could be used in a nice way. But the palette itself looked lovely there. Just now when I clicked on your link, it did look awful, though.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^
But now Trish can't take the blame.

Anonymous said...

^^^
Here's the original palette/image:
http://d30opm7hsgivgh.cloudfront.net/upload/53077325_IQhs0vv3_c.jpg

Anonymous said...

I think that any designer worth anyone's time will be able to make something really nice w/ that. And, conversely, any other designer will just make a jumble of crap and drag everyone else down w/ them. *sigh*

Anonymous said...

What do you make of a store owner un-friending you on Facebook. It's probably my favorite store, although I don't buy from her much, if at all.

I honestly don't post much, no annoying games etc. I post maybe once a week other than "likes" or Happy Birthdays.

I'm feeling really hurt over it. Why would you be friends with someone and then un-friend them?

Anonymous said...

^^
"maybe she's just not that into you..."

Anonymous said...

Good heavens, the August blog train color palette is posted. It's hideous.

I dont' think it's ugly at all but then some people can think outside of the box and make even the worst pallet look good if they take the time to think it out. Obviously you have no imagination.

Anonymous said...

What do you make of a store owner un-friending you on Facebook. It's probably my favorite store, although I don't buy from her much, if at all.

I honestly don't post much, no annoying games etc. I post maybe once a week other than "likes" or Happy Birthdays.

I'm feeling really hurt over it. Why would you be friends with someone and then un-friend them?

July 14, 2011 1:46 PM
-----------------

IMO if you like a designer or a store owner, you should like her fanpage and not necessarily send her a friends request to her personal one. Just because you "know" a designer or a store owner, does not mean she wants to share her the same personal info, photo, thoughts and activities that she would share with her true friends and family with you. The store owner may have accepted your request in the first place because she didn't want to offend you or lose you as a customer and now has decided she wants to use her FB to effectively keep up with her real friends and family.

Anonymous said...

I second what 2:59 just said. Business pages are for business, and personal pages are PERSONAL. Do you work for her (i.e. are you a designer at her store)? Or have you collaborated w/ her? Do you actually KNOW her? If so, maybe I understand you being hurt/offended. But if you're just a customer or a digi-acquaintance, I see no reason for you two to be FB friends. I am a designer and I am not even FB friends w/ both of my store owners, b/c we don't have a PERSONAL relationship. It's business. So we "like" each other's pages, and keep up in the forums and by e-mail. But there's no reason for people who don't actually know me IRL to have access to photos of my family and to my every thought. :)

Anonymous said...

That makes sense. I know several designers lately have posted they are weeding out their "friends" list.

Thanks, that was helpful. (unlike the first poster)

I know it seems silly to be hurt by someone I've never actually met, but it does.

Anonymous said...

I was responding to 2:59, 3:25 posted while I was typing. Thank you too. It does make sense.

I guess I got "friend" happy when I first started Facebook, I would never un-friend someone though.

Anonymous said...

p.s. that's not to say that she couldn't have gone about it a better way... once when I weeded out my friends list to take former students off the list (whom I had accepted requests from before I realized how I was really going to use FB, and how it worked), I let them know first that it was going to happen and why (i.e. not personal, but for professional reasons)

oh and also, I think the first poster (not me, so who knows) was trying to make a joke? from that book that was written last year w/ that title. :-)

Anonymous said...

3:34 - Yep, you're right, she could have gone about it in a better way.

Honestly, I find Facebook kind of awkward, I have my family, high school friends, current friends, co-workers, digital scrapbookers, all in the same "friend" list. I need 5 or 6 separate identities.

I was so excited about Facebook at first, I thought of it like the DST forum when it first started and we were all "friends". I miss that, I guess those days are just over.

OK, choosing to let it go.

Thanks! :)

Anonymous said...

http://d30opm7hsgivgh.cloudfront.net/upload/53077325_IQhs0vv3_c.jpg

I think the earls green, citrus orange and cafe royale match (both in color and tone) and would work well for a masculine or fall palette (perhaps even a grocery shopping trip). Summer pink would work well for a girl’s palette (pyjama night or cosmetics) and the color known as ‘zanah’ is lovely for a vintage palette. From this painting, I would have chosen an orange-y red instead of the pink and a royal blue in place of zanah.

Anonymous said...

I searched (to refer to) but could not find the post commenting about stores charging monthly fees plus collecting a percentage of designer's profits. (think it was part of the redundant theme). For several years now, I've been a designer at a store that charges monthly fees + percent of profits so I thought it was normal! I am very interested in learning about other desigers experiences in this regard. Do you pay monthly fees and/or profits? Also, how long is it before you receive your profits after the cut-off sale date? A week, two, three? Is a month unheard of?

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

I've never been at a store that charges a monthly fee + commission. It's always been commission only. (Anywhere from 75-90% based on store and exclusivity/extra duties).

Most stores I've been at (I have been at 4 total in 3 years) pay 2 times a month. A few days after the 15th, a few days after the end of the month, although one did pay only once a month. I didn't like that too much.

Anonymous said...

I've never been anywhere that charges a fee + commission. I've been at stores that pay monthly (usually within a week) and bimonthly (15th/1st) - either on the day or within a day or two

Anonymous said...

Meant to add - I was at one place that was monthly and you never knew when you were getting paid - sometimes it'd be over a month later - lousy communication with the SO - I left

Anonymous said...

I am a store owner and the thought of charging both commission and server fee is ridiculous (IMO), especially when they also have a collab.

In regard to payment, we pay twice a month within a week payroll closes (15th and end of month)

Anonymous said...

Notice how, in each of the above examples (from the frikkin' dictionary), the word redundant DOES have a relation to "unnecessary"... but how, in all cases, it's because there is repetition or excess. The only reason each example is "unnecessary" is because of repetition/excess. Not just due to being unnecessary, alone.

-----

Nope it doesn't. The first one clearly states redundant as being unnecessary - I'll quote here, just for you:

1 a - exceeding what is necessary or normal - superfluous

Where does it say repetition? Uh, no where.

As an aside, eery single person I asked about this agreed with me, and yes, some of those people are teachers and teachers of English at that. It's quite clearly a dialect and/are regional thing. For you to call me stupid, what does that say about?

Anonymous said...

The Oxford English dictionary is the best known dictionary available, not the Merriam Webster, which, by the way, is a crap dictionary.

Anonymous said...

Blame it on the fact that I used to teach. But I can't STAND that you are arguing this point, when you are so very, very, very wrong about this word. It's absolutely infuriating. At what point will you just admit that you made a mistake?
----

The use of the word 'very' here is redundant.

Anonymous said...

To the teacher: if I said, "I have been made redundant" would you consider that an incorrect use of the word redundant? It may not be the way you're used to seeing/hearing the word used but that does not mean it's incorrect. The same goes for the OP's comment. Her (assuming the OP is female) use of the word redundant is not incorrect.

The Oxford dictionary is a well-established resource for professionals. I work in the legal field and it's the only dictionary we use, other than Black's Law Dictionary.

A thesaurus is also an excellent reference when researching the meaning of a word.

Anonymous said...

Notice how, in each of the above examples (from the frikkin' dictionary), the word redundant DOES have a relation to "unnecessary"... but how, in all cases, it's because there is repetition or excess. The only reason each example is "unnecessary" is because of repetition/excess. Not just due to being unnecessary, alone.

-----

Nope it doesn't. The first one clearly states redundant as being unnecessary - I'll quote here, just for you:

1 a - exceeding what is necessary or normal - superfluous

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, come on! Pay attention. OP said "in each of the above examples..." and then posted 3 or 4 examples (sentences). And you come back here using parts of another post (the definitions, not the examples) to make your point. It just negates your argument and makes you look less credible. Details are important, people!

I've stayed out of this until now, but I have to say that the first person's use of redundant didn't seem spot-on, and it's clear that there are multiple people from both "sides" of this argument posting here during the past few days, so let's just go w/ the most recent poster's assertion (just above) that maybe this is a regional/dialect issue. My best guess is that the main people who believe that something can be redundant w/o excess/repetition are people from Britain, etc., like the definitions (not sentence examples!) above implied.

So let's leave it at that and move on to something more scrapbooky and less silly, shall we?

Anonymous said...

So the 4th challenge in this Design Factor contest, is this just a horrible prompt or are the designers really that bad? I've been able to download 4 or 5 minis from the previous challenges, but most of my favorites are in already and they are all terrible! I'm thinking making them use the same shape so many times is making the kit impossible to scrap with. Am I right or are they just not being creative enough? Does anyone even design like this in real life?

Anonymous said...

I think it's a strange challenge. When are you ever going to put the same shape on everything you design including all of your patterned papers and elements? I understand that it makes it more challenging to come up with a nice kit based on those parameters. But really, that sort of seems like it might be something you might want to encourage a new designer to never do on a real kit. I think a few of them have done a fairly good job with the it given how difficult it is to come up with something that is appealing for that challenge.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^

IMO, it was a terrible idea for a challenge. That's why all the designers who have been doing well have submitted stuff that looks blah. Even the kit Michelle Batton showed as an example was terrible!

http://funkyplaygrounddesigns.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10741

Anonymous said...

I think everyone is taking the challenge too literally. Say you choose a flower as your shape. You can make several different types of flowers ("You are welcome to use variations of your shape so long as each is made by you personally."). This variation would result in different types of elements and patterns and would make for a better looking kit.

I think the real challenge in these things is getting people to actually read the directions - and comprehend them.

Anonymous said...

She says later that you can use variations but they must be essentially the same. For example, you can choose a daisy (not just a flower) and all of your shapes must be daisies.

Anonymous said...

IMO, it was a terrible idea for a challenge. That's why all the designers who have been doing well have submitted stuff that looks blah. Even the kit Michelle Batton showed as an example was terrible!

http://funkyplaygrounddesigns.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10741

--------

I actually really liked the alpha on her example kit and DL'd it just for that part.

Anonymous said...

WTH? http://www.digiscrapconnect.com/forums/index.php?/gallery/image/1382-pigs-can-fly-by-lizard-dau-designs-racer-63/

Anonymous said...

WTH? http://www.digiscrapconnect.com/forums/index.php?/gallery/image/1382-pigs-can-fly-by-lizard-dau-designs-racer-63/
July 15, 2011 9:05 PM
---
I believe Simon already addressed that monstrosity.

What is hard to believe is that she sells in a store.

Anonymous said...

ANTS on her blog? Ugh. I think I'd rather have the pigs.

http://liz-lizarddaudesigns.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Anyone got some kits for the prostitute in your life?!?!

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/search-100/iso-hooker-boots-282471/#post2937431

Anonymous said...

Somebody finally turned in a good one! I really like the one by 2 am designs. And I agree on the example kit, the alpha was the only cute part.

Anonymous said...

turns out we didn't kill the awfulness... it got worse:

http://monkeymeshdesigns.com/

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/happy-place-31/love-templates-win-copy-282454/

Anonymous said...

Strange, but it does look sorta ugly now... but in the designer forum at DST (where Trish had people vote on it), it was suggested by another designer and it rather looked sweet/pleasant.
___________________________________

I think the reason the photo looked good was because there were other dashes of color supporting the main color choices. That's the problem with taking just a few colors from a photo.

Anonymous said...

Anyone got some kits for the prostitute in your life?!?!

http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/search-100/iso-hooker-boots-282471/#post2937431
July 15, 2011 10:13 PM
---------
If she were on my CT, she'd be fired. I wouldn't want my name anywhere near the request for anything "hooker." Besides, where did the 2 yr old obtain the hooker boots...

Anonymous said...

If she were on my CT, she'd be fired. I wouldn't want my name anywhere near the request for anything "hooker." Besides, where did the 2 yr old obtain the hooker boots...

July 16, 2011 8:21 AM
-------------

You'd kick someone off your team for that? Granted, her wording was extremely tacky. It's pretty weird to include your 2 year old daughter and wearing hooker boots in the same sentence. But I think she was trying (and failing) to make a joke. I'm pretty sure she's just looking for some ugly boots element for a page. She's not searching for a "John" for her 2 year old.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, that's just silly. She probably could have worded the ISO better...like "I need a kit with tall, black boots" instead of calling them hooker boots, but she seems like she's a great CT and a really nice person. I'd never kick her off for a poorly worded ISO.

Anonymous said...

^^
Wow - that's pretty harsh about the ISO - plenty of women have boots that they used to wear in their pre-kids days - her daughter was playing dress up - what's the matter with that? What if it were cowboy boots that she used to wear with a short skirt - that'd hardly be horrifying. She's looking for a Girls Night Out style kit. What a bunch of sad and pathetic prudes. What's next - can't have a two year old play dress-up in heels?

Anonymous said...

i dont get it
http://www.shabbypickledesigns.com/boutique/product.php?productid=20085&cat=301
where are the girl's arms? and why is she flat when the horse is dimensional? and the combination of real, doodled and textured paper elements strikes me as odd. not a cute kit. very unimpressed with this freebie from shabby pickle. i used to think they were a higher level store.

Anonymous said...

wtf
http://www.scrapinsider.com/ShoppingCart/product.php?productid=18746&cat=257&page=1

Anonymous said...

LMAO

Anonymous said...

i dont get it
http://www.shabbypickledesigns.com/boutique/product.php?productid=20085&cat=301
where are the girl's arms?
--------------------------
It's a stick figure. Look closer.


---------------
and why is she flat when the horse is dimensional?
---------------------------
You get what you pay for.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, who cares about the stupid ISO. Lighten up!

Anonymous said...

i dont get it
http://www.shabbypickledesigns.com/boutique/product.php?productid=20085&cat=301
where are the girl's arms?
--------------------------
It's a stick figure. Look closer.


---------------
and why is she flat when the horse is dimensional?
---------------------------
You get what you pay for.

July 16, 2011 5:12 PM
----------------------------------
someone from Shabby Pickle must be reading here, tried to look at this and it's now disabled in the store. Must have really been something.

Anonymous said...

It's quiet today. The DF is almost over for round 4. Anyone see anything worth grabbing? I saw a couple of things. I'll post my list of downloads later tonight when I actually start downloading.

Anonymous said...

The round 4 challenge for Design Factor is horrible. Even my favorite designers are turning in ugly crap. To quote Simon, they're "gross"!

Anonymous said...

Maybe with odd rules and requirements, it is like asking Picasso to paint with his feet! No matter how good one designer can be, it might be an almost impossible task to get something great this time around?

Anonymous said...

How is creating a mini around a shape any different than creating a mini around a monochromatic palette? I agree the submissions aren't great this round but the idea is sound

Anonymous said...

I actually found a few things I linked from DF round 4:

Marni Designs - The colors are a bit bright, but I like the theme and it will be useful to me if the elements are quality.

Key of D Designs - The music note is shakily drawn, this can be fixed by holding down shift when drawing a line in most programs. I like the alphabet. I will possibly delete most of the rest of it.

Milly Dee - I love the alphabet and will probably only keep that.

Amanda Carlson - I did not download since I am not a cancer, but I like her mini and it was a fun idea.

Chris Matthis - I also did not download this, but I like how she took a very simple shape and made a nice mini.

Digilicious - I like the gears and downloaded this. I will have to see what I keep after I unzip.

Dancing Princess - I think this one was well done. The colors caught my eye and the elements are fun.

2 A.M. - Not quite my style, but I downloaded it since I like the colors and patterns used.

Inspiredbydominic - An unexpected theme which I find amusing. I downloaded it since it is cute and I have some potty training pictures somewhere.

That's it for me!

Anonymous said...

Wow - Challenge #5 screams boring and self-obsessed - become a recoloring expert and 50% has to be from our store! Oh - and only choose from a couple palettes - how boring!!

Anonymous said...

Challenge #5 is horrible!! The only reason to do this challenge is for self promotion and I feel super bad for the designer's participating, because no one's going to want the results from this challenge. Those palettes are horrible!

Anonymous said...

I agree the palettes are bad and the need to use CU for every product is ridiculous. Way to teach designers to use more CU SM! The 50% CU from SM requirement is also ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

You have to be kidding me! $5 for a once freebie kit that is a mini?
http://www.digitalmonsoon.co.uk/store/princess-kit/

And it's pretty fugly

Anonymous said...

Wow. Scrap Matters is giving the designer permission to violate a TOU on the freebie they gave, but of course, only for this challenge. After this challenge, no freebies are allowed to be made.

Anonymous said...

Q. Does the whole kit have to be CU, or just the 50% CU that's from the SM team?
A. Every item you use in your element pack must be a currently available commercial use product. In this challenge you may not use your own elements. You have to recolor someone else's elements. We want to see your recoloring skills, not your designing elements skills. We realize this may be a stretch and may leave you feeling like you're hanging, but it will be fun and good for your design skills.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's going to help the designers grow how??? Yes, recoloring is a good skill to have. But 100% recolor? No actions allowed. No styles allowed. This is stupid Scrap Matters. We want more designers who can make their own stuff rather than more recolor-ers (yes I know it's not a word). So, I say, WTF???!!! I am supremely annoyed by this!

Anonymous said...

It does seem that this challenge for the Design Factor is not portraying Scrap Matters in a good light.

Anonymous said...

I do not understand why there are establish designers doing this Design Factor contest. I thought it was for beginners.

Anonymous said...

The original contest post said "Open to all designers and those who want to just play for fun." Later, in a thread when an established designer asked Linda said, "Oh, we want experienced designers too! That will help us scrappers find designers who maybe aren't new to designing but are new to us! " and Ripple also replied saying, "seasoned designers are racing too and challenges are... well... challenging!"

I think it's great to have both new and established designers. New designers can learn from established designers and I can get some free stuff from designers I like and try some I haven't.

Anonymous said...

I do not understand why there are establish designers doing this Design Factor contest. I thought it was for beginners.
~~
Are you kidding me?! Why NOT?! If an established designer can learn something they might not have known, fantastic! If it pushes them outside their box, even better! Some might be doing it just for the exposure. Regardless, why does it matter? You're getting free mini-kits.

Anonymous said...

I'm an established designer and would have done the challenge just for exposure. Usually, these contests are great for getting your name out there, especially if your stuff looks a lot better than the competition. However, the last two challenges aren't anything I'd want my name attached too. I can't even find anything to download from challenge 4 and these element packs from challenge 5 don't even have a chance because the color palettes are so ugly!

Anonymous said...

Not Simon, but close...

Challenge 4

Digital Harmony: Nice try, the alpha is fun, but I would prefer two different ones, not one mixed (if I recall only the vowels were made from crayons). It’s a good mini for the contest, but for a store it would need more different elements.

Truman studio: I can’t believe she sells at a store…

Ruby Lane: Cute papers, but it has just exceeded the daily Recommended Dietary Allowance of paisleys.

Snuggle Berry Pie Designs
A typical freebie kit. Not bad, but nothing exceptional.

KatLen Creations: The palette is so dead.

Snackpackgu: Is this a tagger’s contest or what?

Scrappily ever after: I don’t know about you, but I hate skulls. The bones frame is “gross”. I can’t believe people consider it cute. Ok, she’s pregnant, maybe the hormones drove her crazy!

Inspired by dominic: very original “shape”. Cute kit. I’ll keep it, even though the swatch is not my style. I would prefer colors that pop, those are hypotonic.

Dancing princess designs. One of the best. Nice palette for that theme. I am just not sure if it’s usable.

Chunlin designs: the cupcake is really cute, so are some of the papers. It’s a poor kit, a mini mini kit. The alpha was not a good idea.

Digilicious designs: I’ll keep the alpha, even though I am sure I have many like this and I can easily make one by clipping the pattern to the font of my choice.

Binty Designs: a typical Valentine’s freebie kit.

Amanda Carlson: good idea, but not my sign. It would need more elements.

Lizard Dau Designs. Gross. The epitome of bad taste. An inconsiderate waste of digital space

One of a kind: Does my monitor need calibration?

Just Jaime: Cute, but I don’t need it.

Donakat: nice choice of “shape”, bad palette.

Mandy kit: Interesting! I like the bookmark as an element. I think I’ll keep it.

Milly Dee: Great alpha, the boy is ok, the rest will end up in recycle bin.

Digital Monsoon: Hurry up and download it now that is free! (ok, just kiddin’! ) I would only use it for a sign to keep the cats off my yard.

Sugar Kissed: Cute duck, but so used…

Scrappy Cocoa: Fun kit. I could use it. I am not quite sure what her shape was though

Dana’s Footprint: the cherries are very beautiful, the alpha is ok, the kit as a whole is unusable.

Marni Designs: original shape, some ok papers. I just don’t need it.

Anonymous said...

Truman studio: I can’t believe she sells at a store…

- - - - - - -
It's Digiridooo Scraps, they take anyone.

Anonymous said...

For everyone who loves when we argue about semantics on this blog: from my Facebook news-feed this morning (posted by After 5 Designs):

"If you haven't had the chance to check out the July A5D 555 Collab yet, what are you waiting for? This kit is GORGEOUS and chalked full of many creating possibilities! Def. one you don't want to miss out on!! Trust me!!:)"

Uhhh, pretty sure it's not "chalked" full... LMAO!

Anonymous said...

Truman studio: I can’t believe she sells at a store…

- - - - - - -
It's Digiridooo Scraps, they take anyone.


Not my cup of tea but I see absolutely nothing wrong with her designs. Sounds to me like a personal problem!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Truman studio: I can’t believe she sells at a store…

- - - - - - -
It's Digiridooo Scraps, they take anyone.


Not my cup of tea but I see absolutely nothing wrong with her designs. Sounds to me like a personal problem!!

July 19, 2011 6:51 AM


I am the OP.
Not a personal problem, because I don't even know her, nor her store. I just checked her blog. Nothing special to see there.

This kit for the challenge is hideous. Ok, it's a freebie, she doesn't want to sell out her "talent", but this just a step backwards (or even 10) for her as a designer. It's not flattering for her, it's not publicitiy, it's not progress in designing. What's its point then?

Anonymous said...

It does seem that this challenge for the Design Factor is not portraying Scrap Matters in a good light.

_________________________________

I second that.

First - the rules state that you must use 4 items from the sampler - plus 50% of your elements must be from SM. That has a LOT of people pissed off. They do have a few and I mean 'a few' freebies but not enough to justify this requirement, imo. People aren't going to buy CU from them just to make a free kit. That wasn't well thought out.

Second, the prizes are pretty much junk - and there aren't very many

http://scrapmatters.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/design-factor-freebie-prize.jpg


- the other stores have been really generous and made the time we all spent making a mini well worth it. At the end of the challenge, SM is going to draw 1 name (from a random org generator) and give that designer the larger prize. WTF? No other store has operated this way - all the designers are supposed to get the prizes at the end of the challenge.

Anonymous said...

http://scrapmatters.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/design-factor-freebie-prize.jpg

That's a joke!

Anonymous said...

http://scrapmatters.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/design-factor-freebie-prize.jpg


- the other stores have been really generous and made the time we all spent making a mini well worth it. At the end of the challenge, SM is going to draw 1 name (from a random org generator) and give that designer the larger prize. WTF? No other store has operated this way - all the designers are supposed to get the prizes at the end of the challenge.

-----------------

I second this. I am one of the designers who contributed to one of the previous challenge's participation prizes, and I'm quite shocked that a store with as much name/brand-recognition as SM couldn't get its designers to create/offer a full pack each (and only 4 of them did it?!!! for real?). We each contributed a full CU pack, and I believe that *everyone* who designed CU at our store at the time contributed. I'm not even participating in TDF's challenges, but this "prize" from SM pisses me off.

It would appear that SM's designers (or owner? I wish we all knew) are not willing to give away more than a sampler of CU each (and only 4 of them at that), and that instead they are all just trying to force the participants to spend money at their store in order to compete. What a load of bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Uhhh, pretty sure it's not "chalked" full... LMAO!
---------------
This is funny. I love seeing how people who don't know any better spell words/phrases that they've never seen in writing, but have only ever heard. It always cracks me up.

Anonymous said...

It would appear that SM's designers (or owner? I wish we all knew) are not willing to give away more than a sampler of CU each (and only 4 of them at that), and that instead they are all just trying to force the participants to spend money at their store in order to compete. What a load of bullshit.
________________________________

Totally agree. Will not spend one dime there in the future!r

Anonymous said...

Uhhh, pretty sure it's not "chalked" full... LMAO!
---------------
This is funny. I love seeing how people who don't know any better spell words/phrases that they've never seen in writing, but have only ever heard. It always cracks me up.

July 19, 2011 11:27 AM


Wallah! lol

Anonymous said...

OK, totally NOT involved in ANY of the design contest or whatever but why are you so upset with SM?

It's a freebie and you're never going to shop there again because it's not large enough?

I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

It's how they are handling this contest and trying to force contestants to purchase from them. It's not a freebie if you have to complete a challenge for it, especially given the elements the contestants have to work with. I downloaded the design factor cu challenge set they have to use. Over half of what Andilynn has provided is unusable.

Anonymous said...

What did other stores give as prizes?

Anonymous said...

My complaint about it isn't even the shopping requirement. I'm just scrapping with the mini's. But the color palette's they gave make the mini's completely unusable. Even if I were to make my own papers to match them, they are just gross. As a designer, I'd be upset, because the only reason to do a contest like this is for exposure and these mini's just aren't going to generate a lot of excitement.

It seems like there would be enough stuff in the minis they gave to fill the 50% requirement, but it's basically just going to be a junky throw away challenge.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it depends on why you entered the contest.

If you entered the contest so you could design what you want and get lots of exposure, then you are probably annoyed by the challenges.

If you entered the contest to improve your skills. Well, it looks this round will require you to hone your re-coloring skills and test whether you can use CU creatively. (So your stuff doesn't look just like the next one.)

Didn't one of the other rounds require you to develop your doodling skills...and test whether you can create a motif and use it consistently throughout a mini?

IMO at least a couple of the challenge do appear to be about learning designing skills. Maybe the challenge authors are trying to help new designers learn their craft.

Don't know if I'm a fan of those color palettes, but light colors are more difficult to recolor convincingly. I'm guessing the results will show which designers have developed those skills.

On the other hand, if you are a scrapper who wants someone to design exactly what you like, in the colors you want, do it well, and give it to you for free, then go right ahead and complain because the contest results aren't what you want.

Anonymous said...

But are they learning anything? Because that doodle challenge produced about two good kits and so far for challenge 5 we have 9 kits of poor recolors. The "tutorials" listed on SM are basically just suggestions of things to try and judging by the questions about the rest of the challenges and the complaints about whether a "color pop" was properly used or whether anyone can make a usable kit with only one shape, I don't think anyone has learned anything.

Anonymous said...

Scrap Matters is rapidly going downhill, even with Kim B on board. They did a horrible job with their Design Star contest, lost a bunch of their better designers, and now they're "hosting" a competition in which you have to buy stuff from them in order to compete. They're klassy (and yes, that's how I meant to spell it).

Anonymous said...

Why is it that designers create kits without a theme? Annoys the living daylight out of me!

Anonymous said...

If you entered the contest to improve your skills. Well, it looks this round will require you to hone your re-coloring skills and test whether you can use CU creatively. (So your stuff doesn't look just like the next one.)
---------------
No, this round just requires you to purchase CU from the site hosting the challenge. It's seriously ridiculous. If they REALLY wanted to help the racers "hone their re-coloring skills" they would have allowed them to use CU from anywhere, and not place a requirement on how much comes from their site. THAT is the part that some of us believe is "klassy".

Well, that and the fact that their participation prize is measly. The other sites gave up to 10/12 FULL CU packs. This SM version is lame, and borders on rude.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that designers create kits without a theme? Annoys the living daylight out of me!
----------------
So don't buy those kits. There are plenty of themed kits out there for you to choose from. Some people actually get annoyed by kits ALWAYS having a theme, because they might like a palette and the papers/etc. but want the kit to work into their layouts/memory keeping that doesn't work around a specific theme. I'd actually say that non-themed kits, when done well, are more versatile and sell better.

Anonymous said...

Original:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-25525135/stock-vector-funny-mermaids-cartoon-and-vector-isolated-characters.html

Stolen:

http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18953&cat=&page=

Original:

http://tpettit.best.vwh.net/dolls/pd_scans/candy/index.html

Stolen:

http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18752&cat=0&page=1

Anonymous said...

Wow - that's pretty harsh about the ISO - plenty of women have boots that they used to wear in their pre-kids days - her daughter was playing dress up - what's the matter with that? What if it were cowboy boots that she used to wear with a short skirt - that'd hardly be horrifying. She's looking for a Girls Night Out style kit. What a bunch of sad and pathetic prudes. What's next - can't have a two year old play dress-up in heels?
-----

Exactly. She did put quote marks around the word hooker as well. Some people.

Anonymous said...

How is creating a mini around a shape any different than creating a mini around a monochromatic palette? I agree the submissions aren't great this round but the idea is sound
--------

Agreed.

Anonymous said...

Maybe with odd rules and requirements, it is like asking Picasso to paint with his feet! No matter how good one designer can be, it might be an almost impossible task to get something great this time around?
---------

Er, no. A good designer will always be able to come up with something. The key word of course being 'good'.

Anonymous said...

Uhhh, pretty sure it's not "chalked" full... LMAO!
---------------
This is funny. I love seeing how people who don't know any better spell words/phrases that they've never seen in writing, but have only ever heard. It always cracks me up.
----

True. I understand how she may have written chalk, instead of chock, but not chalked. Amy is a terrible speller. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Anonymous said...

There are plenty of themed kits out there for you to choose from. Some people actually get annoyed by kits ALWAYS having a theme, because they might like a palette and the papers/etc. but want the kit to work into their layouts/memory keeping that doesn't work around a specific theme. I'd actually say that non-themed kits, when done well, are more versatile and sell better.
------

Totally agree. I don't like themed kits, unless it's a very loosely related theme. Kits that have very specific themes don't appeal to me at all and I don't buy them.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that designers create kits without a theme? Annoys the living daylight out of me!
July 19, 2011 7:37 PM

^^^
As a designer I get a ton of requests for non-themed kits

Anonymous said...

Original:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-25525135/stock-vector-funny-mermaids-cartoon-and-vector-isolated-characters.html

Stolen:

http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18953&cat=&page=

Original:

http://tpettit.best.vwh.net/dolls/pd_scans/candy/index.html

Stolen:

http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18752&cat=0&page=1

^^^
I presume you've reported the products and you're not just tattle tailing

Anonymous said...

Totally agree. I don't like themed kits, unless it's a very loosely related theme. Kits that have very specific themes don't appeal to me at all and I don't buy them.

- - - - - - - -

But some sort of cohesiveness would be nice. What do you want? Just 10 papers, 3 flowers a few frames and some buttons?

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^

I said I don't like very specific themes and that I didn't mind loosely related themes.

Anonymous said...

I presume you've reported the products and you're not just tattle tailing
------

Yes and it's tale, not tail.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen the submissions for the Blog Train. The worst of the worst has theirs ready.

Anonymous said...

^^^

No. Not part of the DCR and they aren't up on the blog yet.

Anonymous said...

I think the reason the photo looked good was because there were other dashes of color supporting the main color choices. That's the problem with taking just a few colors from a photo.
-------

Exactly. I wouldn't have voted for that palette as it is, as I think it's rather awful.

Anonymous said...

Oh the irony of Andilynn talking about muddy recolors when her grey scale CU items are as muddy and muted as heck. I had to up the contrast on all the elements in the free CU pack just to get a decent color on them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Original:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-25525135/stock-vector-funny-mermaids-cartoon-and-vector-isolated-characters.html

Stolen:

http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18953&cat=&page=

July 19, 2011 9:24 PM

------------------

Have you read the TOU at shutterstock? I don't use it, but some people at work do, and I know that the TOU is very loose, you can do almost anything you want.

Anonymous said...

^^^
exactly, why would you assume it's "stolen", if she purchased it and is within the tou, it is not stealing.

Anonymous said...

http://www.lovelycreationsblog.com/2011/07/7-ways-to-get-more-traffic.html

she should have added #8: get talked about at the smack blogs. i'll bet that's where a lot of her traffic comes from.

Anonymous said...

I finally had some time to look over the round 4 entries for The Design Factor. I'm sad to say I didn't download a thing.

I did like the cupcake in Chunlin's kit, but the papers were seriously lacking and there wasn't much else there (I agree with the previous poster about this).

I thought Inspired by Dominic's kit was a cute idea, but the colors are blah and I have no need for potty training kits.


Moving on to round 5...
After reading everything here, I had to check out SM for myself.

After reading the rules, I have no idea what people are ticked off about when it comes to "having to purchase things from SM".

You have to make a 12-15 piece element pack. One of the elements is an alpha, so let's say you have 12 elements left (so, total is 13 elements). Only SIX of those elements have to come from SM CU. While slightly lame, it's not impossible to create those things from the elements in the freebie provided. The other six can be whatever.

That said, as a designer, you MUST know how to recolor items. And you really should know how to recolor items WELL. I think the idea behind this challenge is very important and tests the designer's skills and hopefully they understand where they need to improve after it's over.

Since it has been stressed this is the premise of the challenge, then the color palettes should have reflected that. Each palette should have had a light to dark color progression to see how designers can recolor in the spectrum. The palettes are beyond gross and aren't appropriate for the challenge's theme.

I also think the 50% SM requirement is crap. Now, that doesn't mean you need to BUY anything to complete the challenge, but I find the limitation completely inappropriate. They are different issues entirely.

I downloaded the CU freebie (it's apparently available to all), and agree that Andilynn's stuff is almost complete garbage and would be a challenge to recolor nicely. Maybe that was intentional, but I doubt it.

I also think it's extremely poor that more designers did not contribute and participate from their store. The "prize" is not worth the effort and is equally lame. This is a great advertising opportunity for designers at their store to target up and coming designers who are probably interested in their CU. All the lack of participation shows me is how few designers at SM actually make anything themselves. No one can make a couple of frame shapes? A couple of element templates? Nothing?

I did look at the entries up so far and what a bunch of crap. Almost everyone just took the elements, recolored them, and put them on a preview. The only one who even attempted to alter some of the CU was Sugarkissed.

I expect 95% of the entries to suck every round, but I do expect more from the host store.

Anonymous said...

Have you read the TOU at shutterstock? I don't use it, but some people at work do, and I know that the TOU is very loose, you can do almost anything you want.

July 20, 2011 3:31 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^
exactly, why would you assume it's "stolen", if she purchased it and is within the tou, it is not stealing.
--------


You CANNOT PURCHASE AND REDISTRIBUTE AND RESELL ANY ITEMS AT SHUTTERSTOCK. What's the point in that? Someone creates art and then someone buys and resells it? Geez louise. THINK!!!!!


No wonder there are so many copyright violations, some people are just plain ignorant.

Anonymous said...

^^^^

I should have added, AS THE ITEM STANDS.

You can purchase items at Shutterstock and use them in your brochures, on your website etc. BUT NOT AS IS. The t

Anonymous said...

exactly, why would you assume it's "stolen", if she purchased it and is within the tou, it is not stealing.
-------

I didn't assume anything. I read the TOU and she's not within them. Why assume that that I didn't read them?

Anonymous said...

Check out the whale.

Shutterstocks product:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=killer+whale&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=15300877

"Crystal's" product:
http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18952&cat=0&page=1

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

I'm very disappointed. I used to shop a bit over at DS, but I keep seeing some of the designers selling products that are not meant to be resold in accordance with the original Terms of Use.

Anonymous said...

Original:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-25525135/stock-vector-funny-mermaids-cartoon-and-vector-isolated-characters.html

Stolen:

http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18953&cat=&page=

Original:

http://tpettit.best.vwh.net/dolls/pd_scans/candy/index.html

Stolen:

http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=18752&cat=0&page=1

These products are no longer available. I have noticed that many items in Holliewood's kits are also available on Shutterstock and wondered if that was allowed because it doesn't sound like it from their TOU. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

Anonymous said...

^^^^
exactly, why would you assume it's "stolen", if she purchased it and is within the tou, it is not stealing.
-------

I didn't assume anything. I read the TOU and she's not within them. Why assume that that I didn't read them?
------

Then, perhaps you shouldn't assume that she purchased them through Shutterstock, and rather, uses another Stock Image site.

Anonymous said...

The cookie jar in Holliewood Studio's kit, Cookies for Santa, is a Hallmark copyright cookie jar.

Holliewood's kit: http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=17525&cat=0&page=6

Hallmark cookie jar (check additional views in this listing that show the bottom of the jar): http://cgi.ebay.com/HALLMARK-COOKIE-JAR-MITTENS-/150622076938

Anonymous said...

Then, perhaps you shouldn't assume that she purchased them through Shutterstock, and rather, uses another Stock Image site.
------

I didn't assume she purchased them at all :) There are a lot of pirate sites out there that have these images.

Anonymous said...

The cookie jar in Holliewood Studio's kit, Cookies for Santa, is a Hallmark copyright cookie jar.

Holliewood's kit: http://www.deviantscrap.com/shop/product.php?productid=17525&cat=0&page=6

Hallmark cookie jar (check additional views in this listing that show the bottom of the jar): http://cgi.ebay.com/HALLMARK-COOKIE-JAR-MITTENS-/150622076938
------

We've had these discussions before. People arguing the physical product vs. the digital image. I think it's a violation, but other people don't.

Anonymous said...

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=ice+cream+sundae&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=6&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=34812640

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=melting+ice+cream&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=6&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=10735003

Anonymous said...

Guess those links are too long to work here. Here they are shorter.

http://tinyurl.com/3dxlhkf

http://tinyurl.com/3lzg2hc

http://tinyurl.com/3mn24u5

http://tinyurl.com/3l9y7oo

http://tinyurl.com/4xzlnqthttp://tinyurl.com/4xzlnqt

http://tinyurl.com/3bpc95o

http://tinyurl.com/3takkof

Anonymous said...

And the kit:

http://tinyurl.com/3le9xqg

Anonymous said...

All your examples are wonderful and good and dandy but you fail to realize that all ROYALTY FREE art can and does appear on more then one stock photo site where Terms of Use vary greatly. You have no idea whether Hollywood purchased a license to use these images in the way that she has. She has been around the digiscrap world long enough that I can't imagine she would purposely use something that she knew she couldn't use. Why would she want to ruin her reputation in doing that? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Anonymous said...

One thing to remember is that stock vendors typically upload their stock at different stores, so they may not have been purchased from Shutterstock.

I am a designer as well, and I had previously purchased something from Shutterstock to use in a kit, and depending on the licence you buy at the time of purchase, YES you can use them in kits. I even emailed them to be sure.

Anonymous said...

For Royalty Free images, they can end up costing quite a bit if you need many of them! Imagine how many kits you have to sell to recover the expenses of "purchasing" all those photos!

Anonymous said...

All your examples are wonderful and good and dandy but you fail to realize that all ROYALTY FREE art can and does appear on more then one stock photo site where Terms of Use vary greatly. You have no idea whether Hollywood purchased a license to use these images in the way that she has. She has been around the digiscrap world long enough that I can't imagine she would purposely use something that she knew she couldn't use. Why would she want to ruin her reputation in doing that? Just doesn't make sense to me.
-------
I guess there's one way to find out for sure and that would be to send a note to the photographers or the admin at Shutterstock (with examples of how the photos are being used) and ask if that's considered legal use of their images.

Anonymous said...

ummm.... to the Shutterstock nutbar, you have WAY too much free time on your hands. LMAO

Anonymous said...

I am not the Shutterstock nutbar but I would say that with keywords, it would be pretty quick to find all those photos, especially seeing how specific the elements are in the kit.

Anonymous said...

I am the Shutterstock nutbar. I work in advertising and have to be able to find images quickly. It’s all about using specific keywords. For example, a search for “yellow bar stool” brings up Holliewood’s stool on the first page of search results, “ice cream swirl popsicle” brings up the group of 5 colorful popsicles on the first page of search results. It doesn’t take long if you use the right keywords.

Anonymous said...

Some of the Challenge 5 contributions are cute. I wouldn't use them, because the colors are horrendous. But some of them are so freaking horrendous it's pathetic! But with what SM gave them to work with, is it any wonder? Andrea's CU pieces were very poor quality.
There won't be much that's of use to most of us from these simply bc they are all using so many of the same elements over and over again (as required by the challenge) that we are seeing them colored 10 ways to sunday.
And what is with people not knowing how to stick to the palette? I guess thats part of what this is supposed to teach?

Anonymous said...

The least offensive of the element packs for this challenge are:
Marni
Scraps by Mara
Farynars Wings
Milly Dee

The rest mostly make me want to vomit.

I actually like Chris Matthis, Inspired by Dominic & Piccolina's pieces.

A LOT of the participants in the Design Factor have dropped out of this challenge.

Anonymous said...

I think I figured out who "Simon" is. Carly Dee.

Anonymous said...

How do you know and who is Carly Dee?

Anonymous said...

^^^^^^^^^
Who is Carly Dee?

Anonymous said...

I have never heard of Carly Dee and even a google search couldn't turn up anything. I got the feeling that Simon was probably a well-known top designer.

Anonymous said...

Carly is Queen of Hearts. And I'm 100% positive that she isn't Simon. From the few hints Simon has given as to who she is, it sounds nothing like Carly. And you're an idiot if you think it does.

Anonymous said...

Since we are guessing as to who Simon is, anyone have any good guesses?

Anonymous said...

"Simon" says she was out of town recently. What designers have been out of town this past month?

Anonymous said...

It's summer vacation for many people. Everyone has been in and out of town recently it seems.

Anonymous said...

I get the feeling that Simon doesn't think too highly of template designers so I doubt it is Carly.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I get the feeling that Simon doesn't think too highly of template designers so I doubt it is Carly.

------------

Or she doesnt like them because she is a template designer

Anonymous said...

Where was it said that "Simon" was a designer? I went back and read what "Simon" has written and saw nothing that said she was. Did I miss something? I saw that she said she works outside the home but nothing about being a designer.

Anonymous said...

All your examples are wonderful and good and dandy but you fail to realize that all ROYALTY FREE art can and does appear on more then one stock photo site where Terms of Use vary greatly. You have no idea whether Hollywood purchased a license to use these images in the way that she has. She has been around the digiscrap world long enough that I can't imagine she would purposely use something that she knew she couldn't use. Why would she want to ruin her reputation in doing that? Just doesn't make sense to me.
----------

Oh the naivety. I have read the TOU at many, many photo stock sites and I can assure you that not one of the reputable ones will allow to you resell and redistribute the image as purchased. You can use them in flyers, brochures, on websites, etc, etc. but not as an individual item and that includes kits.

Any reputable stock artist will not have TOU that 'varies greatly' from site to site. What's the point in that? Why would they create something so they can earn money, only to have someone else sell that exact same item, taking away income? The simple answer is, they wouldn't, and they don't.

See, it's these ridiculous notions and ideas that have so many people violate copyright law.

Anonymous said...

Carly is Queen of Hearts. And I'm 100% positive that she isn't Simon. From the few hints Simon has given as to who she is, it sounds nothing like Carly. And you're an idiot if you think it does.
----------

Absolutely agree.

Anonymous said...

Where was it said that "Simon" was a designer? I went back and read what "Simon" has written and saw nothing that said she was. Did I miss something? I saw that she said she works outside the home but nothing about being a designer.
------

Yes, you missed this:

I'm more than happy to give it for free. I know it may seem mean, but I really just speak as a designer, scrapper, and customer. I buy a lot of product even though I'm a designer. I support this industry and the designers who deserve it - and by deserving I mean those who make quality, consistent, and cohesive products.

June 24, 2011 9:37 PM

Anonymous said...

LOT of the participants in the Design Factor have dropped out of this challenge.
---------

What a bunch of pathetic losers they are!

While I do think that some of the entries in this round are lacking, I applaud all of them for at least trying.

I wasn't that impressed with the challenge to start with, but I've since changed my mind. This challenge is clearly separating out those who can from those who can't. Not only in recolors, but also those who can design. Some of the kit ideas are pretty nifty and original, considering that most of them were working with the same items.

Anonymous said...

Carly is Queen of Hearts. And I'm 100% positive that she isn't Simon. From the few hints Simon has given as to who she is, it sounds nothing like Carly. And you're an idiot if you think it does.
----------

Absolutely agree.

July 21, 2011 5:44 PM
^^^^
I don't see how taking a wild guess at something makes someone an idiot. Very poor choice of words.

Anonymous said...

^^^^^

Let's not start that again!

Anonymous said...

I'm not in the race/challenge/contest but I did want to see if I could recolor the very muddy and muted rose given as part of the challenge. Here's my attempt, using the yellow and orange palette. The stamens aren't thrilling me, but the rest is okay.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/rose1f.jpg/

Anonymous said...

I got the feeling that Simon was probably a well-known top designer.
------

Why?

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to say that I'm a newbie designer and I had my first sale today. (This place can use some good news every once in awhile).

Anonymous said...

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/rose1f.jpg/

July 21, 2011 7:16 PM
^^^
Not bad, the paler yellow around the center kind of has a green tint to it though.

Anonymous said...

Pisses me off SO MUCH when stores are late with their payment. I've been waiting to be paid since the 17th. Nothing. The owner seems to be MIA around our forum, but is happily posting on Facebook.

Anonymous said...

Not bad, the paler yellow around the center kind of has a green tint to it though.
------

Thanks. The green tinge is probably due to reducing it to web quality.

It was a crap piece to deal with. I'm surprised anyone managed to get anything done with it.

Anonymous said...

Pisses me off SO MUCH when stores are late with their payment. I've been waiting to be paid since the 17th. Nothing. The owner seems to be MIA around our forum, but is happily posting on Facebook.
----

So go and post on her wall!! Ask about your pay. Go ahead and embarrass the bitch.

Anonymous said...

(This place can use some good news every once in awhile).
-----

why?

Anonymous said...

why?

- - - - - -

Why the fuck not?

Anonymous said...

^^^

Why the attitude?

Anonymous said...

With the bad press SM has gotten on their non-ability to host Designer challenges and contests, why is DSA letting them host their next one? I'd pull the plug on that idea ASAP!

Anonymous said...

I thought DSA was dead.

Anonymous said...

The only bad press SM has gotten if from everyone here. Who cares if the challenge isn't liked. It is a CHALLENGE people. And all the complaining about the participation prize? It is FREE. Those crappy contestants should be thankful they are getting anything at all.

If you don't like it, then don't participate. There ya go.

«Oldest ‹Older   1801 – 2000 of 2452   Newer› Newest»