MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Chico on October 19, 2010, 11:17
-
Three months to fix the CSS on my_uploads.
Hard to understand why so much delay for bug fixes. I'm fearful for the future of istock. Things are falling apart quickly.
-
As much as I don't want to defend iStock, I believe they had more important things to "fix" than some back-end CSS...
-
Maybe lately yes, but not for the entire three months... not to mention the presumption that they actually did some testing.
I don't understand the point of the whole layout being thrown off because of the weird background images they've put on the right of the screen. It annoys me that I have to either stretch my browser window beyond my usual browsing size, or scroll, in order to see all the columns on the uploads page. They've never ever ever seemed to figure out that function should be the number one priority, not how "cool" they think their design is.
I realize in the grand scheme of their mountain of issues, it's a small deal. ::)
-
It's beyond me why any agency would want to actually "design" the photographer's back-end. Why do we have to look at a pretty site?
We just upload and organize our content, no need for "fancy" designs. Completely useless and a waste of bandwidth.
Same with Veer and those letters on the right... :P
-
There are so many broken things on the site at the moment - some broken by f5, some have been broken for a long time and didn't get fixed in f5 - that the my_uploads page is the tip of the iceberg.
I don't think it's an epic fail - not bad enough for that - but for an industry leader to do so poorly with the software and design of their site is a real puzzle. There are tons of successful e-commerce sites out there - this isn't even leading edge stuff any more.
If I had to guess, I'd say that spending money on the site is something Getty wants to avoid - they're busy trying to boost profits and this is only indirectly related and thus a low priority for them (regardless of what gets said in the IS forums).
-
Almost a month ago:
3. Why is it taking so long to do all the F5 fixes for things that were broken (EL page, my_uploads, etc.)
Our development schedule is jam-packed with new features and improvements to existing functionality. We have been focused on optimizing the site for improved customer experience, and now that we've made such a gigantic stride forward in that area, we're turning our focus back on the contributors. We've therefore pushed a whole raft of fixes to the top of our TO Do list. We have front end and back end fixes. Sometimes in order to make the front end fix work we need to focus on the back end first. This is the case for some of these broken features. But, I want to reassure you that we are working on them and will have them out to you as quickly as possible. You will see these fixes coming online during our weekly releases over the next few months.
Weekly releases... ZZZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzz
-
Still no news about site bugs. I even got used to them now.
And 14 credits vectors jump to 15 without any word from Istock. Even with contributors asking for some explanation, nothing, just silence.
-
Weekly releases, where are you?!?!?!? We still have a lot of bugs. A rain forest of bugs.
-
It's beyond me why any agency would want to actually "design" the photographer's back-end. Why do we have to look at a pretty site?
We just upload and organize our content, no need for "fancy" designs. Completely useless and a waste of bandwidth.
Same with Veer and those letters on the right... :P
completely agree
we - photographers and designers - are straight and modern people which like simplicity: "less is more". So "fancy" designs are not only useless but also inherently ugly.
-
do you know there is a greasemonkey script made just for that particular issue? Works very well if you use firefox.
(which indeed doesn't answer why istock can't fix it at the source)
-
do you know there is a greasemonkey script made just for that particular issue? Works very well if you use firefox.
(which indeed doesn't answer why istock can't fix it at the source)
Yep. Remember me something like this:
(http://thereifixedit.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/674ebf73-d3b6-4ff1-8bc5-e3812b9e8067.jpg)
-
And Logo program?!?!? Maybe it's a main FIASCO ever (and it's not so easy in last Istock times). Almost one year since launch and still not released for sales.
-
And Logo program?!?!? Maybe it's a main FIASCO ever (and it's not so easy in last Istock times). Almost one year since launch and still not released for sales.
And, unless I've missed it, no real explanation for the holdup.
-
Seems to me they've been trying to do too much, too fast, with no real solid direction as what they're trying to achieve. The logo program is a perfect example. Everything they've done lately seems to be pretty half-assed... iStock needs to slow down with all their so-called "improvements" and focus on what they're good at; SELLING PHOTOS.
-
The other thing that is crazy about the logo program is that, apparently if you want to deactivate your logos, iStock has to "assess" each and every request. And apparently, Contributor Relations is poised to give you more Kool-Aid to encourage you not to do so. What a bunch of "asses".
-
Some news?
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
Just remembering:
Sep 28. FAQ thread:
You will see these fixes coming online during our weekly releases over the next few months.
Where is the "weekly releases"? Someone saw?
Sometimes i think that everyone went away and left Lobo barking at forums.
Sad.
-
They are too busy trying to figure out more "tests" in order to take more money from both their contributors and their buyers.
-
Just remembering:
Sep 28. FAQ thread:
You will see these fixes coming online during our weekly releases over the next few months.
Where is the "weekly releases"? Someone saw?
Yes. They released the code to reduce our EL royalties >3 months early.
Other than that,
Sometimes i think that everyone went away and left Lobo barking at forums.
Sad.
Yup, that's about the sum of it.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ and WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
-
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
Someone help me to increase list? Is it not sufficient to Mr Thompson resign?
-
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
Someone help me to increase list? Is it not sufficient to Mr Thompson resign?
EL percentage reduction fiasco
Agency search fiasco
-
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
Someone help me to increase list? Is it not sufficient to Mr Thompson resign?
EL percentage reduction fiasco
Agency search fiasco
Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
-
istockys fiasco
-
Istanbul editorial 'way in' lypse fiasco.
-
List update. More to come.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
-
Google indexing fiasco
-
Someone help me to increase list? Is it not sufficient to Mr Thompson resign?
None of this stuff is sufficient to cost Thompson his job. What will, however, possibly cost him is if he doesn't hit the earnings projections that he's been tasked with reaching.
Which, frankly, could actually be the worst-case scenario for contributors. Especially exclusives. If Thompson is replaced, the new guy will probably take a look at where they can cut some more costs to get back on track with the profit goals, and those big 30-40% royalty rates for exclusives might begin to look even more "unsustainable."
-
Partner Program.. Once you're in you will never (or after some real hard days and nights) get out..
-
Someone help me to increase list? Is it not sufficient to Mr Thompson resign?
None of this stuff is sufficient to cost Thompson his job. What will, however, possibly cost him is if he doesn't hit the earnings projections that he's been tasked with reaching.
Which, frankly, could actually be the worst-case scenario for contributors. Especially exclusives. If Thompson is replaced, the new guy will probably take a look at where they can cut some more costs to get back on track with the profit goals, and those big 30-40% royalty rates for exclusives might begin to look even more "unsustainable."
Yup. Looked at it in that light, things like the EL fiasco (2 months interest on the underpayments, no sign that it's going to be resolved today; totally inadequate responses on the forums and from CR) could be helping him to reach his target.
-
List is growing very fast.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
-
My $0.19 EL, when a buyer paid 100 credits for a legal guarantee. How does that benefit me? I would rather not know that istock are making a nice fee from my photo while I receive nothing. All it did was make me more determined not to have a long term future with them.
-
My $0.19 EL, when a buyer paid 100 credits for a legal guarantee. How does that benefit me? I would rather not know that istock are making a nice fee from my photo while I receive nothing. All it did was make me more determined not to have a long term future with them.
Istock dosn't make a nice fee: they assume a risk. But I agree that legal garantees shouldn't be named ELs, they should find another term.
-
My $0.19 EL, when a buyer paid 100 credits for a legal guarantee. How does that benefit me?
It affects your redeemed credits score against which your royalty is set I think.
-
Someone help me to increase list? Is it not sufficient to Mr Thompson resign?
None of this stuff is sufficient to cost Thompson his job. What will, however, possibly cost him is if he doesn't hit the earnings projections that he's been tasked with reaching.
Which, frankly, could actually be the worst-case scenario for contributors. Especially exclusives. If Thompson is replaced, the new guy will probably take a look at where they can cut some more costs to get back on track with the profit goals, and those big 30-40% royalty rates for exclusives might begin to look even more "unsustainable."
Yup. Looked at it in that light, things like the EL fiasco (2 months interest on the underpayments, no sign that it's going to be resolved today; totally inadequate responses on the forums and from CR) could be helping him to reach his target.
yep, I'm surprised the greedy pigs haven't rolled out the code to screw nons at a pathetic 15% yet
-
Istock dosn't make a nice fee: they assume a risk.
Do they?
Who ticks the box stating that the image they are uploading is free from any copyright or legal issues, I don't think you'll find iStock 'assume' the risk if it all goes wrong, they just offer the option of a guarantee so that the buyer won't.
-
Adding to the list of iStock epic fails, for the last two hours a search only returns images from the 'Agency collection', expect few sale today folks ::)
-
iStockeys fiasco
-
Adding to the list of iStock epic fails, for the last two hours a search only returns images from the 'Agency collection', expect few sale today folks ::)
Insane! If you go to Advanced Search and exclude Vetta and Agency you can fix it, but still.
-
Adding to the list of iStock epic fails, for the last two hours a search only returns images from the 'Agency collection', expect few sale today folks ::)
??? I'm getting absolutely normal results, now and one hour ago, when I was searching files to buy.
-
Adding to the list of iStock epic fails, for the last two hours a search only returns images from the 'Agency collection', expect few sale today folks ::)
I wasn't finding that, but the issue has been discussed in this thread.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266911&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266911&page=1)
Again, no rush to fix it.
-
How about the loooooooooong times to receive support tickets responses? In fact, it's almost useless.
-
Never ends.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
-
-Vector Royalties Fiasco
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=1)
-
Certain old files eligible for the XXXL size when it was introduced didn't get changed, thus losing money on what could have been an xxxl sale.
Someone is making a killing on some barely altered Nasa blue marble images when all the rest were removed, mine were removed but they had been more worked on than the survivors. Apply this to numerous other removal instances too.
-
Lets go again.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
-
Adding to the list of iStock epic fails, for the last two hours a search only returns images from the 'Agency collection', expect few sale today folks ::)
I wasn't finding that, but the issue has been discussed in this thread.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266911&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266911&page=1[/url])
Again, no rush to fix it.
No, that's a different issue. This morning, like RT said, searches were bringing up only Agency photos in the search results, even if you didn't click on the Agency lightbox first. I must have seen it right before it got fixed because I ran two searches where all I got were Agency and then another where I got a lot of Vetta. So I knew it was back to normal. :D
-
Three months to fix the CSS on my_uploads.
Hard to understand why so much delay for bug fixes. I'm fearful for the future of istock. Things are falling apart quickly.
The fix "made" by Sean Locke works great.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255552&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255552&page=1)
Sean, at least be kind and give some credits from "your" script to Shawn Olson.
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum83/6942.htm (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum83/6942.htm)
He made that script in 2004. And he wrote: "Please include credit when using this script and read this site's Terms & Conditions before using."
http://www.shawnolson.net/a/503/altering-css-class-attributes-with-javascript.html (http://www.shawnolson.net/a/503/altering-css-class-attributes-with-javascript.html)
And here is the original script:
http://www.shawnolson.net/scripts/public_smo_scripts.js (http://www.shawnolson.net/scripts/public_smo_scripts.js)
-
Not to worry. I've removed that bit.
-
I'd like to hear forum friends.
Since F5 was running, my sales drop to dead. Specially now in November. You think there is a relationship between F5 and sales drop? Because search issues, interface issues, etc, etc, etc.
-
I'd like to hear forum friends.
Since F5 was running, my sales drop to dead. Specially now in November. You think there is a relationship between F5 and sales drop? Because search issues, interface issues, etc, etc, etc.
Nope. I had my best week ever last week.
-
I'm sure my absolute number was a hair lower than Sean's, but I too had a best week ever last week.
-
Well, i'm a illustrator, you know, that kind of Istock beggar...
-
I had two very good days (for $$$, dls are spiralling downhill) and three truly awful days. Today only one sale so far (I checked, and the corresponding Monday in 09 and 08 were good). Weird, huh?
Anyway, I think I've worked out the obivious solution to all the site problems. All the adverts for jobs in the web development area say, "cutting edge, please". Maybe it's all too far over that edge. Maybe really strong standard skills would be a safer/better bet.
But to be honest, I can't imagine why, having made a mistake, the developers don't fix it. I'd do it as a point of honour, even in my own time, if it were me.
Never mind, they're all really happy at their jobs. They all just love working at iStock (according to Roger Mexico and Yeppers by JJRD), which, as was said on the thread, must mean they who cause the problems aren't going to be penalised by getting pay cuts.
-
im an illustrator too and after the f5... my sales dropped 25%. really worrisome trend. The only positive thing we had going b4 the f5 was our complex files got the vetta bump. they take that away from us too. Our files are now buried under agency and vetta. Im an exclusive there but that is almost meaningless since i am a second rate exclusive in that club and i believe for profits sake, istock is slowly closing its doors for the majority of the contributors that that gave their success. Now they are letting in others and giving them the exclusive crown special status and uploads thousands of agency images at once which immediately shoots to the top of the broken searches that only shows agency stuff.
Crazy times on istock... Lets stay on that crazy line and lets pretend for a second i was istock . My desperation for more sustained profits leads me to create an f5 update where I have the ability to tweek the best match to my favor. Can i write code that automatically puts a certain contributors files 200-500 images down the regular search order? What if its certain contributors that are very close to their next target level for next year which will result in thousands of dollars difference.
I was on track to get to the 35% for vectors there when they announced that fiasco. All i have is speculations since there is lack of transparency
-
Can i write code that automatically puts a certain contributors files 200-500 images down the regular search order?
There does seem to be some sort of 'person' weighting in the PR. But nothing like as obvious or obnoxious as it was, briefly, several months back.
-
im an illustrator too and after the f5... my sales dropped 25%. really worrisome trend. The only positive thing we had going b4 the f5 was our complex files got the vetta bump. they take that away from us too. Our files are now buried under agency and vetta.
Things for illustrators appear to have been one setback after another in the last couple of years - were you around in 2008 when illustrations went to the back of the bus in the best match? The only good news on the removal from Vetta is that there are a number of people who are still in Vetta complaining that their sales are down after the price increases (can't comment on that as I withdrew from Vetta and turned Agency off after they said it'd have to go to Getty as well as IS; no opt out).
There was supposed to be something new and cool for illustrators, promised when they pulled illustrations from Vetta, but AFAIK we've heard no more on what or when on that.
Certainly the outside Agency contributor who got 1800+ files onto IS in a few weeks has seen some sales (it just says >200, not exact number) - perhaps the Agency content at the top of all searches as much as the Vetta price increases has caused the drop in Vetta DLs?
-
im an illustrator too and after the f5... my sales dropped 25%. really worrisome trend. The only positive thing we had going b4 the f5 was our complex files got the vetta bump. they take that away from us too. Our files are now buried under agency and vetta.
Things for illustrators appear to have been one setback after another in the last couple of years - were you around in 2008 when illustrations went to the back of the bus in the best match?
In a good day, around 2007/2008, it's not so rare something like 40 downloads/day. And less than 10 downloads/day are a really bad day. Except for weekends. Today, 5 downloads/day is a good day.
In 2007/2008 my portfolio has around 100 illos. Now, 2010, above 400 illos. Sad.
-
Never mind, they're all really happy at their jobs. They all just love working at iStock (according to Roger Mexico and Yeppers by JJRD), which, as was said on the thread, must mean they who cause the problems aren't going to be penalised by getting pay cuts.
ROFL. Now it's that kind of attitude that got you kicked off their happy woo-yay forums.
-
were you around in 2008 when illustrations went to the back of the bus in the best match?
I was a buyer for years and only starting contributing around 2008
-
Update to include Fixes Released Nov 24.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
-
You still don't have the stockys fiasco included, despite it's being mentioned twice. Maybe we are on ignore? ;)
-
You still don't have the stockys fiasco included, despite it's being mentioned twice. Maybe we are on ignore? ;)
Oh, sorry. My personal fiasco.
Update to include Fixes Released Nov 24.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
-
You still don't have the stockys fiasco included, despite it's being mentioned twice. Maybe we are on ignore? ;)
Nor the fiasco where they announced the 'editorial' iStockalypse in Istanbul, then have not provided an outlet for the images taken there.
-
Oh, sorry. My personal fiasco.
LOL! :D No problem. Might as well have as complete a list as possible!
-
Update to include Fixes Released Nov 24.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
No way. I haven't been following along. The fixes are a fiasco too? ROFL.
ETA: Just skimmed that thread. It seems like the fixes broke more stuff than it fixed. So the question that needs to be asked is, are the breaks all in iStock's favor again? With misreporting of redeemed credits and miscalculated royalites/redeemed credits? Hmmm...
-
Yeah, I don't understand why they can't put the EL column on the same page as all the other info in My Uploads. Sean's script works perfect...why can't they just duplicate that? So clunky to have to go to a different section (Financials page).
And they still haven't added the info whereby we know exactly how much the client paid for the credits and what percentage we got. For instance, my last EL paid me $17.55 for 125 credits. So either I got less than 20% or the client paid about $.70 per credit. Not good.
But then again, I doubt that info will ever be forthcoming. After all, we don't have any right to know how much money we are making! >:(
-
I'm sure my absolute number was a hair lower than Sean's, but I too had a best week ever last week.
I'm sure my numbers are a "fraction" lower than both of you, but also having a pretty good run at the moment.
-
But then again, I doubt that info will ever be forthcoming. After all, we don't have any right to know how much money we are making! >:(
Well, that is not what makes you happy, is it? Hanging out at such a cool place as iStock is the real reward, right? ;)
-
I'm sure my absolute number was a hair lower than Sean's, but I too had a best week ever last week.
I'm sure my numbers are a "fraction" lower than both of you, but also having a pretty good run at the moment.
I'm sure my numbers are a "fraction of holgs fraction", but had BME, BDE, BHE this november.
-
Never mind, they're all really happy at their jobs. They all just love working at iStock (according to Roger Mexico and Yeppers by JJRD), which, as was said on the thread, must mean they who cause the problems aren't going to be penalised by getting pay cuts.
ROFL. Now it's that kind of attitude that got you kicked off their happy woo-yay forums.
Somehow that 'yeppers' from JJRD pisses me off the most. Before the whole F5-royalties fiasco it was this dude who claimed he'd put his 'behind' on the line for us and 'if there were decisions threatening the community he'd leave'. After the announcement we get nothing from him anymore, not a single word....only this 'yeppers' from the top of his ivory tower about how exciting and fun it is to work for istock.
Empty words, empty promises.
-
Somehow that 'yeppers' from JJRD pisses me off the most. Before the whole F5-royalties fiasco it was this dude who claimed he'd put his 'behind' on the line for us and 'if there were decisions threatening the community he'd leave'. After the announcement we get nothing from him anymore, not a single word....only this 'yeppers' from the top of his ivory tower about how exciting and fun it is to work for istock.
Empty words, empty promises.
Yeppers!
-
So when I do a search on the new and improved istock site, the contributors name, no. of downloads per image, etc. are gone. All it shows is the image no., an exclusive crown or E+ symbol and the lightbox symbol. How do I get the other info back, or have they removed it so it will never show? I looked around the control panel, but I'm just not finding that list that you used to be able to check the items you wanted to show.
-
scroll down, under images left side --->display settings.
-
but if you browse agency files, as of now, your chosen settings will be lost, and you are going to have to do it again.
-
scroll down, under images left side --->display settings.
thanks tempura. glad they are still there.
-
So when I do a search on the new and improved istock site, the contributors name, no. of downloads per image, etc. are gone. All it shows is the image no., an exclusive crown or E+ symbol and the lightbox symbol. How do I get the other info back, or have they removed it so it will never show? I looked around the control panel, but I'm just not finding that list that you used to be able to check the items you wanted to show.
It seems to randomly turn that information off. Or maybe not randomly, maybe it's in relation to something you've done (i.e. an unintended consequence of you innocently doing something totally unconnected). I haven't worked out what causes it, but it's happened to me a few times over the past few weeks. (I haven't chosen to browse Agency files, so something else must cause it too.)
-
So when I do a search on the new and improved istock site, the contributors name, no. of downloads per image, etc. are gone. All it shows is the image no., an exclusive crown or E+ symbol and the lightbox symbol. How do I get the other info back, or have they removed it so it will never show? I looked around the control panel, but I'm just not finding that list that you used to be able to check the items you wanted to show.
It seems to randomly turn that information off. Or maybe not randomly, maybe it's in relation to something you've done (i.e. an unintended consequence of you innocently doing something totally unconnected). I haven't worked out what causes it, but it's happened to me a few times over the past few weeks. (I haven't chosen to browse Agency files, so something else must cause it too.)
I hadn't changed any settings at all. A while ago I went to the site, entered a search term in the box, and the results showed up differently. I don't think it's anything I did and I sure didn't change those settings because I couldn't even find where to change them back until tempura told me. Maybe it's like the checkbox for opting out of PP and it arbitrarily changes itself back? I remember the old site used to periodically change the images that were going through the queue at the bottom right from the non-exclusives tab where I had it set, to the exclusives tab, where I didn't want it.
Who knows.
-
Funny and ironic.
Mr Thompson complaining about Microsoft bugs on twitter.
Why #Microsoft will never get it: http://yfrog.com/5rsjf0p (http://yfrog.com/5rsjf0p) The no anti-aliasing for text under 8 pt still isn't fixed in Mac Office 2011
-
Yep. They did it again.
Vetta sale prices for December included. Double RC credits and nothing for Illustrators dudes again.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
-
Funny and ironic.
Mr Thompson complaining about Microsoft bugs on twitter.
Why #Microsoft will never get it: [url]http://yfrog.com/5rsjf0p[/url] ([url]http://yfrog.com/5rsjf0p[/url]) The no anti-aliasing for text under 8 pt still isn't fixed in Mac Office 2011
Please, please tell me that that's not him, or someone has hacked into this account or something.
I just can't believe that he would have the brass neck to post that.
If it really was him, I'm very, very afraid. :o :( :'(
-
Yep. They did it again.
Vetta sale prices for December included. Double RC credits and nothing for Illustrators dudes again.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
The hits just keep on coming!
-
Lobo on Sunday, while locking the 'Contributers underpaid twice' thread:
"How about we get another thread going early next week on ETAs regarding the things talked about in this thread. "
Lobo today while locking a thread asking for an update:
"We will start a thread this week, like I said."
Whoops, what happened to 'early'?
Time is a long-term (whatever that means) moving goalpost in iStockland.
-
Time for update... New search start rocks.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
- New faceted search start fiasco.
-
Can't wait for the editorial fiasco!
-
I bet they get the commission cuts in January right :)
-
I bet they get the commission cuts in January right :)
no kidding. they seem to have the "money for istock" working fine, the money for contributors, not so much. I keep thinking about a post I read in one of the threads about getting stuck in 'agency only' search results. Someone had posted something like "I bet if the buyers had been stuck in 'dollar bin only' or 'main collection only' search it would have been fixed overnite."
I hate being so cynical-- but these past few months istock has given me basically nothing to be happy about.
-
I bet they get the commission cuts in January right :)
Of course they will.
Look how the 'get rid of the 10% EL for exclusives' was rolled out early and worked so perfectly they're having a very difficult job fixing it.
-
they might accidentally drop all non-exclusives to 15% or some other glitch like that. I bet that would be really hard to fix. It might take a few months.
-
they might accidentally drop all non-exclusives to 15% or some other glitch like that. I bet that would be really hard to fix. It might take a few months.
Don't give them any ideas ;)
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
-
I bet they get the commission cuts in January right :)
And no delays.
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
I'm not sure if this is a bug or feature, but I already put in a comment in the bugs thread that says it is a very bad idea if this was intentional.
A tremendous number of files are between 10 and 100 downloads. It used to be you could see >60 >40 - now it's >10 until it's in flames. Forget the contributor end for the moment, if buyers care at all about downloads as a way to gauge what's popular (my notion is that this gives them a sense of comfort when they aren't sure if they should buy something or not) there's a whole range of images that now look essentially the same and which used to show a little more precisely where the image stands.
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
I'm not sure if this is a bug or feature, but I already put in a comment in the bugs thread that says it is a very bad idea if this was intentional.
A tremendous number of files are between 10 and 100 downloads. It used to be you could see >60 >40 - now it's >10 until it's in flames. Forget the contributor end for the moment, if buyers care at all about downloads as a way to gauge what's popular (my notion is that this gives them a sense of comfort when they aren't sure if they should buy something or not) there's a whole range of images that now look essentially the same and which used to show a little more precisely where the image stands.
I'm thinking it's an F5! new and improved feature. ::)
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
I'm not sure if this is a bug or feature, but I already put in a comment in the bugs thread that says it is a very bad idea if this was intentional.
A tremendous number of files are between 10 and 100 downloads. It used to be you could see >60 >40 - now it's >10 until it's in flames. Forget the contributor end for the moment, if buyers care at all about downloads as a way to gauge what's popular (my notion is that this gives them a sense of comfort when they aren't sure if they should buy something or not) there's a whole range of images that now look essentially the same and which used to show a little more precisely where the image stands.
i suspect it might be deliberate. Some contributers have stated that they don't like/want them. I do, as it gives me an idea of what it's not worth sending iStockwards, i.e. if there re 5 good images of X and they've sold three times between them, there's no point in sending my pic here as there's no market for X photos.
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
I'm not sure if this is a bug or feature, but I already put in a comment in the bugs thread that says it is a very bad idea if this was intentional.
A tremendous number of files are between 10 and 100 downloads. It used to be you could see >60 >40 - now it's >10 until it's in flames. Forget the contributor end for the moment, if buyers care at all about downloads as a way to gauge what's popular (my notion is that this gives them a sense of comfort when they aren't sure if they should buy something or not) there's a whole range of images that now look essentially the same and which used to show a little more precisely where the image stands.
i suspect it might be deliberate. Some contributers have stated that they don't like/want them. I do, as it gives me an idea of what it's not worth sending iStockwards, i.e. if there re 5 good images of X and they've sold three times between them, there's no point in sending my pic here as there's no market for X photos.
I think it's helpful from a buyers standpoint, too. But then again, why keep something that's helpful to buyers...if contributors don't want it, by all means, get rid of it. ::) I'm wondering if the top contributors don't want it because buyers can see how many thousands of times an image has been purchased and not want to use it because of too much exposure.
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
I'm not sure if this is a bug or feature, but I already put in a comment in the bugs thread that says it is a very bad idea if this was intentional.
A tremendous number of files are between 10 and 100 downloads. It used to be you could see >60 >40 - now it's >10 until it's in flames. Forget the contributor end for the moment, if buyers care at all about downloads as a way to gauge what's popular (my notion is that this gives them a sense of comfort when they aren't sure if they should buy something or not) there's a whole range of images that now look essentially the same and which used to show a little more precisely where the image stands.
i suspect it might be deliberate. Some contributers have stated that they don't like/want them. I do, as it gives me an idea of what it's not worth sending iStockwards, i.e. if there re 5 good images of X and they've sold three times between them, there's no point in sending my pic here as there's no market for X photos.
I think it's helpful from a buyers standpoint, too. But then again, why keep something that's helpful to buyers...if contributors don't want it, by all means, get rid of it. ::) I'm wondering if the top contributors don't want it because buyers can see how many thousands of times an image has been purchased and not want to use it because of too much exposure.
That's what I'd think if I were a buyer, but apparently lots of buyers buy what's popular because they think it must be good. I've read posts from buyers more or less saying that.
-
That's what I'd think if I were a buyer, but apparently lots of buyers buy what's popular because they think it must be good. I've read posts from buyers more or less saying that.
So why do you think contributors don't want it showing? What's the harm?
-
That's what I'd think if I were a buyer, but apparently lots of buyers buy what's popular because they think it must be good. I've read posts from buyers more or less saying that.
So why do you think contributors don't want it showing? What's the harm?
It's been posted on the iStock forums often. It's thought to lead to copying, and I'm sure to some extent, it does. I don't necessarily mean direct copying, but copying an idea. Better for the buyers (more choice) not so good for the contributers, sharing sales.
-
That's what I'd think if I were a buyer, but apparently lots of buyers buy what's popular because they think it must be good. I've read posts from buyers more or less saying that.
So why do you think contributors don't want it showing? What's the harm?
It's been posted on the iStock forums often. It's thought to lead to copying, and I'm sure to some extent, it does. I don't necessarily mean direct copying, but copying an idea. Better for the buyers (more choice) not so good for the contributers, sharing sales.
Good point.
It's been posted on the iStock forums often. Sorry, don't go there often. Been there more in the last 2 weeks than I have in the last 2 years.
-
Another fiasco of which I am reminded as I race to upload some holiday pix and get them in front of customers' eyes in time for Christmas ... it takes several days for them to show up in searches, or even to show up in the private lightboxes to which they were added. I know they've got millions of files and thousands of keywords to index, but what did they implement their DB with, freaking BASIC on Commodore 64's?
If Google was to buy IS that's a bug that would be fixed, pronto. The proof: I just searched at google for [site:istockphoto.com <my keywords>] and they already found - as the 4th item in the text results - an image that I uploaded a few days ago and which is still not indexed at IS.
I wish they would fix this, but I'm not sure that they even recognize it as a bug which is hampering their sales and profits. If seasonal images are not promptly indexed and made available for sales in time, then they are stuck storing them on their servers for almost a whole year before they will generate any revenue.
-
Another fiasco of which I am reminded as I race to upload some holiday pix and get them in front of customers' eyes in time for Christmas ... it takes several days for them to show up in searches, or even to show up in the private lightboxes to which they were added. I know they've got millions of files and thousands of keywords to index, but what did they implement their DB with, freaking BASIC on Commodore 64's?
If Google was to buy IS that's a bug that would be fixed, pronto. The proof: I just searched at google for [site:istockphoto.com <my keywords>] and they already found - as the 4th item in the text results - an image that I uploaded a few days ago and which is still not indexed at IS.
I wish they would fix this, but I'm not sure that they even recognize it as a bug which is hampering their sales and profits. If seasonal images are not promptly indexed and made available for sales in time, then they are stuck storing them on their servers for almost a whole year before they will generate any revenue.
Notice from RogerMexico:
"They have been holding back doing the search update over the last few days to make sure that all the pushes and changes to the search didn't cause things to be missed when they did. They are now satisfied that it will update correctly and have turned it all back on. Images since Saturday will be available in searches soon."
-
Thanks for that. But even when they aren't churning up their servers with updates it takes at least an extra day or two after file approval for it to appear in searches, no?
-
Another fiasco of which I am reminded as I race to upload some holiday pix and get them in front of customers' eyes in time for Christmas ...
That would really be a waste of your effort.
If seasonal images are not promptly indexed and made available for sales in time, then they are stuck storing them on their servers for almost a whole year before they will generate any revenue.
Sorry, at this point, it's your fault for not getting them up in time. I stopped uploading holiday stuff a couple weeks ago.
-
Sorry, at this point, it's your fault for not getting them up in time. I stopped uploading holiday stuff a couple weeks ago.
That's all very well and good, and I know that with lead times, seasonal photos sell best about 6-10 weeks beforehand, but for some of mine I had to wait for snow. And now one's gone to executive. Ah well, next year, maybe, depending on the best match.
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
If you open the file to view, you can see the number of downloads as they were showed until a few days ago, an so, have a better information about the popularity of this file.
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
If you open the file to view, you can see the number of downloads as they were showed until a few days ago, an so, have a better information about the popularity of this file.
Thanks, loop. I do understand that, but buyers can't see that number. I suppose in the grand scheme of all things hosed over there, this one is just minor. Someone made a good point about how people rush to copy you if they see an image that sells well. That is a good reason to get rid of the info, but from a buyer's perspective, I would think that number might factor in to the buying decision. If popularity isn't an issue for a project, no problem. If a buyer wants a fresh image that hasn't been seen everywhere, I would think the info would be relevant.
-
...
Sorry, at this point, it's your fault for not getting them up in time. I stopped uploading holiday stuff a couple weeks ago.
The actual issue however is whether IS has what you would consider adequately fast computers and software to complete the keyword indexing and lightbox links for images after they have been approved and are otherwise retrievable.
-
...
Sorry, at this point, it's your fault for not getting them up in time. I stopped uploading holiday stuff a couple weeks ago.
The actual issue however is whether IS has what you would consider adequately fast computers and software to complete the keyword indexing and lightbox links for images after they have been approved and are otherwise retrievable.
Note RM's explanation copied above.
-
...
Sorry, at this point, it's your fault for not getting them up in time. I stopped uploading holiday stuff a couple weeks ago.
The actual issue however is whether IS has what you would consider adequately fast computers and software to complete the keyword indexing and lightbox links for images after they have been approved and are otherwise retrievable.
Note RM's explanation copied above.
I repeat:
Thanks for that. But even when they aren't churning up their servers with updates it takes at least an extra day or two after file approval for it to appear in searches, no?
And if it takes a day or two under normal circumstances to make images available for searches and in lightboxes, is that acceptable, or do you think that more effort should be expended to speed this up? Given the technology that is available and the apparent success of search engines like Google to quickly index a far greater number of objects with far more keywords involved.
-
...
Sorry, at this point, it's your fault for not getting them up in time. I stopped uploading holiday stuff a couple weeks ago.
The actual issue however is whether IS has what you would consider adequately fast computers and software to complete the keyword indexing and lightbox links for images after they have been approved and are otherwise retrievable.
As long as everyone's content is equally available within a day or two (which is better than at some points prior), I'm happy with that. I don't know the ins and outs of indexing across multiple servers and such to say it is a trivial thing to do it instantly.
-
So it looks like they've changed the DL numbers under my images. Anything with 100 to 499 DLs says >100. It doesn't change until you get to 500 DLs then it says >500. My image with 1300+ DLs now says >1000. Talk about rounding down...
If you open the file to view, you can see the number of downloads as they were showed until a few days ago, an so, have a better information about the popularity of this file.
Thanks, loop. I do understand that, but buyers can't see that number. I suppose in the grand scheme of all things hosed over there, this one is just minor. Someone made a good point about how people rush to copy you if they see an image that sells well. That is a good reason to get rid of the info, but from a buyer's perspective, I would think that number might factor in to the buying decision. If popularity isn't an issue for a project, no problem. If a buyer wants a fresh image that hasn't been seen everywhere, I would think the info would be relevant.
I really don't know the reason for this change... but the reason for te first change --if I remember well-- was the fact than posting the exact downloads allowed anyone with IT skills, competitor or not, to monitor the daily total sales of istock. Just guessing, but maybe this new change intends to difficult eve more an approximate calculation.
-
...
The actual issue however is whether IS has what you would consider adequately fast computers and software to complete the keyword indexing and lightbox links for images after they have been approved and are otherwise retrievable.
As long as everyone's content is equally available within a day or two (which is better than at some points prior), I'm happy with that. I don't know the ins and outs of indexing across multiple servers and such to say it is a trivial thing to do it instantly.
I'm not an expert on this particular field either, though I believe that improvements are possible. But if they're already as good as or better than their microstock competitors then they might not feel that improving this is worth the expense.
On the plus side, reviews of my seasonal content have been blazingly fast for the last few days.
-
I really don't know the reason for this change... but the reason for te first change --if I remember well-- was the fact than posting the exact downloads allowed anyone with IT skills, competitor or not, to monitor the daily total sales of istock. Just guessing, but maybe this new change intends to difficult eve more an approximate calculation.
Yes, I guess it would be embarrassing for Getty to have some of their contributors who have better IT skills than their own employees get the daily sales numbers faster and more accurately. ;)
I also remember that explanation for the change to >10, etc. I wonder why they even bother keeping them at all then because the gap between >100 and >500 etc. is quite substantial, from a buying perspective.
-
it's December. sales are usual ebb and flow here, with a few hiccups on days where site was down etc. yesterday was really good.
-
Time for update... New search start rocks.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
- New faceted search start fiasco.
Coming up soon...editorial fiasco.
-
Images since Saturday will be available in searches soon."
This is, surprise surprise, BS. Images are still not in portfolios after 4 or 5 days, anyone with any sense will deactivate recent uploads because the tech team at IS basically don't know their ass from their elbow.
-
Images since Saturday will be available in searches soon."
This is, surprise surprise, BS. Images are still not in portfolios after 4 or 5 days, anyone with any sense will deactivate recent uploads because the tech team at IS basically don't know their ass from their elbow.
Och, I'm not sure. The current best match sinks new images like stones, so it won't make much difference.
-
Images since Saturday will be available in searches soon."
This is, surprise surprise, BS. Images are still not in portfolios after 4 or 5 days, anyone with any sense will deactivate recent uploads because the tech team at IS basically don't know their ass from their elbow.
Just wondering ... if they want to sell editorial content which is far more time-sensitive than generic stock images, won't they have to make indexing and lightbox links come up faster? A multi-day delay like this would pretty much kill whatever business they were hoping to get from newsworthy photos.
-
Just wondering ... if they want to sell editorial content which is far more time-sensitive than generic stock images, won't they have to make indexing and lightbox links come up faster? A multi-day delay like this would pretty much kill whatever business they were hoping to get from newsworthy photos.
Time sensitive "editorial" is not what they are interested in, if you read the announcement.
-
Images since Saturday will be available in searches soon."
This is, surprise surprise, BS. Images are still not in portfolios after 4 or 5 days, anyone with any sense will deactivate recent uploads because the tech team at IS basically don't know their ass from their elbow.
Just wondering ... if they want to sell editorial content which is far more time-sensitive than generic stock images, won't they have to make indexing and lightbox links come up faster? A multi-day delay like this would pretty much kill whatever business they were hoping to get from newsworthy photos.
They are not interested in images related to time-sensitive news
-
Just wondering ... if they want to sell editorial content which is far more time-sensitive than generic stock images, won't they have to make indexing and lightbox links come up faster? A multi-day delay like this would pretty much kill whatever business they were hoping to get from newsworthy photos.
Time sensitive "editorial" is not what they are interested in, if you read the announcement.
OK ... so I'm not going to get a big speedup of indexing etc. when I'm late uploading seasonal stock images ;D
-
Images since Saturday will be available in searches soon."
This is, surprise surprise, BS. Images are still not in portfolios after 4 or 5 days, anyone with any sense will deactivate recent uploads because the tech team at IS basically don't know their ass from their elbow.
I would suppose that it depends on their definition of "soon" :)
-
Quotes from two buyers in a row on IStock forum (posting here for SNP and loop)
"As a buyer, I see this new search as another step in a long, long trend here at iStock to continually increase the hostility of the user experience.
The idea that the search returns a "variety of price points" as a convenience or that they can't exclude vetta because of "issues on the back end" is just smoke and mirrors and to be honest, I'm a little insulted that it's being presented as a benefit to me, the buyer.
I imagine only positive feedback will be allowed to stick on this board, but I'll give it a shot anyway.
"
"
^^ "Hostility" seems to be an apt word. Who is the target audience for this site? Is it the contributors or the buyers? The agency and its contributors are more than happy to say how they think that things should be presented but many seem to forget the end users, your buyers. I know my budget for every project and when it allows for Vetta or Agency, you can bet that I search Vetta or Agency. Otherwise, if I am working on a weekly for example, you are wasting my time by not allowing me to either sort by price or exclude Vetta and Agency. I had to wade through a ton of images yesterday, even with filters, and I was unimpressed to say the very least.
A lot of folks will fool themselves into thinking that these are the opinions of one or two complainers who aren't afraid to post, but you need to understand that we represent many buyers who remain silent in their frustration and end up looking elsewhere. Seriously, quit making our jobs harder please.
"
-
Wow, those are two very telling posts. I am going over to the IS forum to see if I can find that thread. Thanks for posting here, nruboc.
-
Here's another buyer. 'Profiledesign' is not a happy bear;
"Back for third day now... still the same disaster. See that big button at the top of the page marked SEARCH? It does not work. At all. The only way i can get to find pics to buy is through a goggle image search. I'm on Safari 5. Sort it out!"
... and then, a few hours later, was back to sling a bit more about;
"Hello again. I cleared my cache (again), dumped cookies (again), logged out, quit safari, came back in again... and the search button actually worked for the first time in 3 days. But it BLOODY STOPPED WORKING AGAIN for the very next thing I tried to search for! If you think I'm going through this rigmarole every time I want to search for something new, you are very wrong."
-
snip
Quotes from two buyers in a row on IStock forum (posting here for SNP and loop)
"As a buyer, I see this new search as another step in a long, long trend here at iStock to continually increase the hostility of the user experience.
Can you post a link to where this is in the IS forum? I looked, but have no clue where it's at. Everything is buried in pages long threads about all the search problems...
edit: never mind, I found some in the 20 page long bug fix thread.
-
Here's another buyer. 'Profiledesign' is not a happy bear;
"Back for third day now... still the same disaster. See that big button at the top of the page marked SEARCH? It does not work. At all. The only way i can get to find pics to buy is through a goggle image search. I'm on Safari 5. Sort it out!"
... and then, a few hours later, was back to sling a bit more about;
"Hello again. I cleared my cache (again), dumped cookies (again), logged out, quit safari, came back in again... and the search button actually worked for the first time in 3 days. But it BLOODY STOPPED WORKING AGAIN for the very next thing I tried to search for! If you think I'm going through this rigmarole every time I want to search for something new, you are very wrong."
It seems the solution to the bugs is to tell the buyers/contributors to use another browser or use google search.
A list of supported browsers was posted, but most of the problems are being reported by people using those supported browsers.
When a buyer complained of the search not working (early in the thread), someone suggested they use a different browser. I said that when I went to a site that didn't work and was told to use a different browser, I kept the browser and used a different site.
-
This start of new search are the biggest fiasco of all listed. Total FAIL. Nothing works.
-
Maybe I've been listening to too many conspiracy theories lately, but I'm beginning to wonder if Getty actually wants iStock to fail. I find it hard to believe that they're as incompetent and uncaring as they appear to be. Maybe part of their overall business strategy is to sink iStock, perhaps there are tax advantages in it for them. Who knows?
-
Maybe I've been listening to too many conspiracy theories lately, but I'm beginning to wonder if Getty actually wants iStock to fail. I find it hard to believe that they're as incompetent and uncaring as they appear to be. Maybe part of their overall business strategy is to sink iStock, perhaps there are tax advantages in it for them. Who knows?
I can sure see why it looks that way. But I really don't think Getty's goal is to destroy Istock. They just don't care if they destroy Istock. Getty is lining its owners pockets and pumping up its balance sheet as fast as it can in 2010 for a sale in 2011 (my opinion). Istock is just collateral damage.
-
Quotes from two buyers in a row on IStock forum (posting here for SNP and loop)
Keep me out of your obsessions, please. Thanks.
-
Maybe I've been listening to too many conspiracy theories lately, but I'm beginning to wonder if Getty actually wants iStock to fail. I find it hard to believe that they're as incompetent and uncaring as they appear to be. Maybe part of their overall business strategy is to sink iStock, perhaps there are tax advantages in it for them. Who knows?
Yeah, I totally get what you're saying and it sure seems that way. I, too, find the extreme incompetencies regarding the function of the website very weird.
I also remember reading or hearing something about how companies keep promoting the people who actually do the work up into management, until there's really nobody left to do the actual work. I am thinking the conversation was about istock.
-
Yeah, I totally get what you're saying and it sure seems that way. I, too, find the extreme incompetencies regarding the function of the website very weird.
I also remember reading or hearing something about how companies keep promoting the people who actually do the work up into management, until there's really nobody left to do the actual work. I am thinking the conversation was about istock.
My husband says that people get promoted to the level of their incompetence.
-
Yeah, I totally get what you're saying and it sure seems that way. I, too, find the extreme incompetencies regarding the function of the website very weird.
I also remember reading or hearing something about how companies keep promoting the people who actually do the work up into management, until there's really nobody left to do the actual work. I am thinking the conversation was about istock.
My husband says that people get promoted to the level of their incompetence.
Yep, that's what it was!
edit: The Peter Principle
-
edit: The Peter Principle
Contrast with the Dilbert Principle, in which the truly incompetent are promoted into management, since that's where they can do the least damage.
I've experienced examples of both.
-
edit: The Peter Principle
Contrast with the Dilbert Principle, in which the truly incompetent are promoted into management, since that's where they can do the least damage.
I've experienced examples of both.
Me too. :D
-
My impression is that IS's success was based on (a) crowd sourcing (b) low prices, (c) simple and easy to use for customers. These basic factors are a large part of the success of other new companies like Amazon and Ebay. It's a winning formula.
Getty acquired it because they were impressed as heck with the financial results of this model. But they must have never bothered to try to understand the pillars of its success, because they're trying as hard as they can to make it (a) elitist, (b) high priced, (c) confusing and unreliable for customers.
Maybe it's not deliberate sabotage, but it does sometimes seem like they're being willfully ignorant and careless with their prize.
An alternative theory may also be valid - that the high-ups know exactly what they're doing, namely, pump and dump. Pump up the financials by the maximum amount into the shortest possible period of time so they can dump their shares in the company for as much money as possible. This is a variant of Greater Fool theory - that you can escape the consequences of bad business decisions as long as you can find someone dumber than you who will take your mistakes off your hands for a juicy price.
-
My impression is that IS's success was based on (a) crowd sourcing (b) low prices, (c) simple and easy to use for customers.
SNIP
...they're trying as hard as they can to make it (a) elitist, (b) high priced, (c) confusing and unreliable for customers.
Very well stated! I never thought about it quite like that, but you are right!
I don't think pump and dump is an alternate theory BTW. They seem to be doing both simultaneously. :P
-
My impression is that IS's success was based on (a) crowd sourcing (b) low prices, (c) simple and easy to use for customers.
SNIP
...they're trying as hard as they can to make it (a) elitist, (b) high priced, (c) confusing and unreliable for customers.
Very well stated! I never thought about it quite like that, but you are right!
I don't think pump and dump is an alternate theory BTW. They seem to be doing both simultaneously. :P
yep, I was thinking the same thing! +1
-
...Maybe it's not deliberate sabotage, but it does sometimes seem like they're being willfully ignorant and careless with their prize.
An alternative theory may also be valid - that the high-ups know exactly what they're doing, namely, pump and dump. ...
I don't know what the heck management is thinking, and I have seen lots of indicators that long term success is being sacrificed for 2010 profits, however...
This search fiasco just doesn't fit the cash grab model. Why would Getty/H&F authorize spending on new search if they were just profit taking? I wouldn't unless it enabled some new cash-grabbing feature and I haven't seen that so far.
Also, given iStock's terrible track record with software - I don't think they've ever rolled out anything new that worked respectably out of the gate - why would anyone let them hose sales at a busy time of the year? It would have been so simple to wait until early January to totally eff up search with the new code and it'd probably have been fixed by March when the next busy patch typically occurs.
-
They probably *thought* it was going to boost sales.
-
...Maybe it's not deliberate sabotage, but it does sometimes seem like they're being willfully ignorant and careless with their prize.
An alternative theory may also be valid - that the high-ups know exactly what they're doing, namely, pump and dump. ...
I don't know what the heck management is thinking, and I have seen lots of indicators that long term success is being sacrificed for 2010 profits, however...
This search fiasco just doesn't fit the cash grab model. Why would Getty/H&F authorize spending on new search if they were just profit taking? I wouldn't unless it enabled some new cash-grabbing feature and I haven't seen that so far.
Also, given iStock's terrible track record with software - I don't think they've ever rolled out anything new that worked respectably out of the gate - why would anyone let them hose sales at a busy time of the year? It would have been so simple to wait until early January to totally eff up search with the new code and it'd probably have been fixed by March when the next busy patch typically occurs.
It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism. ???
-
...
It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism. ???
It could have been a collision between 2 different pump and dump strategies - (1) cut overhead by reducing or capping money spent on IT - (2) fiddle with software to enhance sales of premium products.
Imagine that a 5 and dime store wants to introduce a new line of expensive, premium products in order to pump up revenues for a quick sale. But they also want to cut expenses so they send their clerk to stock the shelves and put price tags on the goods with a shaky, old chair instead of a ladder. The chair collapses and the shelves come crashing down, right in the holiday season when they were hoping to make most of their money for the year.
Just speculating.
-
...
It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism. ???
It could have been a collision between 2 different pump and dump strategies - (1) cut overhead by reducing or capping money spent on IT - (2) fiddle with software to enhance sales of premium products.
Imagine that a 5 and dime store wants to introduce a new line of expensive, premium products in order to pump up revenues for a quick sale. But they also want to cut expenses so they send their clerk to stock the shelves and put price tags on the goods with a shaky, old chair instead of a ladder. The chair collapses and the shelves come crashing down, right in the holiday season when they were hoping to make most of their money for the year.
Just speculating.
We're all speculating, but it sounds plausible.
-
This search fiasco just doesn't fit the cash grab model. Why would Getty/H&F authorize spending on new search if they were just profit taking? I wouldn't unless it enabled some new cash-grabbing feature and I haven't seen that so far.
Well, it sort of does, IMO. They have effectively forced their most expensive collections in front of buyers at a very busy time of year when they are most likely to be short on the time it would take to search further back in the library for cheaper images.
Yes, they are losing some price sensitive buyers in the process, but again, that doesn't matter in a pump and dump scheme. Most of the buyers already have credits, are short on time, and will buy what's showing up in the searches. I am certain that sales of Vetta and Agency files have skyrocketed since the search fiasco was implemented(broken).
ETA: Pet Chia has it right again. As usual :)
-
Buyer 'Spyplane' not happy;
"Doesn't Anyone Test This Stuff?
I see there are many, many problems with the newly fixed up web site. Did no one think to test things before going live?
It's a major problem that when I add a photo to a lightbox, and then want to add another photo to a lightbox, I have to scroll all the way through my list of lightboxes to select the lightbox again. Your system used to "remember" this...now it doesn't..and it's a major slowdown for me. Every time I want to add a photo to the lighbox I have to go through the entire procedure all over again. It's ridiculous.
Can you please fix it ASAP?
iStockphoto used to be reasonably nice, but you have become very unfriendly to your paying customers over the last two years or so, and this is just one more example of that.
If your web site crew can't do things right, please get a new bunch to work on it. You're charging enough for everything...so please spend some of your money and stop messing things up while saying everything is an "improvement" which it is not."
-
Another buyer, srjmarketing, chipping in too;
"Your search bar has not worked for me all week. It's utterly useless on Safari 5 for Mac. I'm running Leopard 10.5.8 on PPC Mac with Safari 5.0.3 and all cookies enabled. I can't for the life of me reason why more thorough testing was not done beforehand. Even the font size in this feedback area is ridiculously small. You guys really need a major site overhaul. AGAIN."
What a fiasco.
-
Well, it looks like the EL fix is a fiasco. Some people still not paid when they were supposed to be and no emails sent out about the paid out 10% either. ::)
-
...
It all fit a pump and dump theory until this search fiasco. This is actually taking away from their 2010 bottom line by hosing potential sales right at the end of the year. Seems counterproductive...announce a Vetta sale and then hose the search mechanism. ???
It could have been a collision between 2 different pump and dump strategies - (1) cut overhead by reducing or capping money spent on IT - (2) fiddle with software to enhance sales of premium products.
Imagine that a 5 and dime store wants to introduce a new line of expensive, premium products in order to pump up revenues for a quick sale. But they also want to cut expenses so they send their clerk to stock the shelves and put price tags on the goods with a shaky, old chair instead of a ladder. The chair collapses and the shelves come crashing down, right in the holiday season when they were hoping to make most of their money for the year.
Just speculating.
---------------------
Could also be the result of uncoordinated strategies directed at different levels. I think the site redesign was organized within Istock by the people who's job it is to manage the interface, probably a year or more ago. They set the thing in motion and it worked its way (poorly) into implementation.
Separately people outside/above Istock management decided they need to increase the Istock/getty bottom line, first with the proposed canister change then the RC change. The pressure to generate more revenue was more urgent (pump and dump perhaps) at the time of the RC change, as they couldn't even wait until the end of the year to jack up the vetta prices.
Since the work for the refresh had been under way for a while, most of the costs for the refresh (paying the programmers) was already incurred, there there was no need to stop it. Istock executed its refresh as well as it executes just about anything new and you have the mess you have today.
-
Well, it looks like the EL fix is a fiasco. Some people still not paid when they were supposed to be and no emails sent out about the paid out 10% either. ::)
Oh boy.
-
Well, it looks like the EL fix is a fiasco. Some people still not paid when they were supposed to be and no emails sent out about the paid out 10% either. ::)
Oh boy.
Does that really surprise you??? Just like the fix about the ability to filter out Vetta/Agency being at the top of the search and they turn away and make it where you can't filter out Vetta/Agency...only standard?? It's all the same ol same ol!! :-\
-
Well, it looks like the EL fix is a fiasco. Some people still not paid when they were supposed to be and no emails sent out about the paid out 10% either. ::)
Oh boy.
Does that really surprise you??? Just like the fix about the ability to filter out Vetta/Agency being at the top of the search and they turn away and make it where you can't filter out Vetta/Agency...only standard?? It's all the same ol same ol!! :-\
No, not surprised in the least. But I did think it was fixed. I haven't been keeping up with that thread, I'm fascinated by the "search doesn't work" thread.
-
More buyers unhappy that you can't filter out Vetta & Agency:
salamandrin:
I looked around at some of the posts in the help forum to see if I could find an answer before posting this, but there's so many posts and so much going on. Forgive me if I am posting this in the wrong place or if this has already been answered somewhere else.
In the search on the left side, I see the checkboxes for 'vetta' , 'agency' etc.. Well I want to find photos that are NOT in those categories. Currently when I search for photos, the results by default include vetta and agency photos. It seems that the vetta and agency checkboxes should be checked by default so I can uncheck them to filter out the collections I don't want. In the previous istock advanced search there was an option to exclude vetta, but I can't find anything like that now.
Please let me know if there is a way to find only 'regular' collection photos (exclude vetta and agency) and if so how to do it.
Thank you!
reachbcs:
iStock is turning into an absolute joke with Vetta photos.
We are a small web design business who regularly ask clients without imagery to browse iStock. In the past, since these Vetta images have been introduced, we've asked them to use the filter. This saves us time explaining to them that we can't spend 20-30 credits on one image and it obviously saves them money.
iStock, please turn it back on. The addition of the vetta collection in the first place was pretty annoying, but to actually remove the filter? That's just going to be isolating small web agencies like us.
Sort it out!!!!!
-
More buyers unhappy that you can't filter out Vetta & Agency:
iStock don't seem to be interesting in smaller, low-budget customers.
They seem to be wooing big customers who get heavily discounted credits.
It's that difference between profit and profitability, which I don't understand and no-one has yet explained.
-
They keep saying "soon", "next week", etc. as far as fixes for the sort, but I am betting it is that way for good. I am betting there are going to be a LOT of changes after Jan. 1.
-
More buyers unhappy that you can't filter out Vetta & Agency:
iStock don't seem to be interesting in smaller, low-budget customers.
They seem to be wooing big customers who get heavily discounted credits.
It's that difference between profit and profitability, which I don't understand and no-one has yet explained.
I agree. iStock appears to be making a sharp turn in the clientele that it wants for customers. I'd venture to guess that while the smaller, low-budget clients are what built iStock, istock is now turning its back on these customers in order to woo the big spenders.
-
iStock don't seem to be interesting in smaller, low-budget customers.
They seem to be wooing big customers who get heavily discounted credits.
It's that difference between profit and profitability, which I don't understand and no-one has yet explained.
Which I think is putting all their eggs in one casket. Lots of (loyal) smaller buyers are their bread and butter. Corporate clients are nice because they have bigger budgets, but they are not particularly loyal.
(BTW, I thought "basket" but typed "casket"...and decided to leave it. Seemed more appropriate :D)
-
By the way, how about sales after start of new search engine? Mine are almost dead.
-
snip
Which I think is putting all their eggs in one casket. Lots of (loyal) smaller buyers are their bread and butter. Corporate clients are nice because they have bigger budgets, but they are not particularly loyal.
(BTW, I thought "basket" but typed "casket"...and decided to leave it. Seemed more appropriate :D)
Yes, I laughed when I read casket and agree...very appropriate! :D
-
By the way, how about sales after start of new search engine? Mine are almost dead.
me too, but hard to tell if it's the seasonal down time (which is usual for me) or the new search.
-
By the way, how about sales after start of new search engine? Mine are almost dead.
me too, but hard to tell if it's the seasonal down time (which is usual for me) or the new search.
me too, and I think it's both.
-
Another one:
Wow. This site is an utter mess. Time for me to move on to a new stock site. Too many problems with iStock this past year and I only foresee worse problems for 2011. Good luck guys. I'm moving on and not waiting around for you to fix your "issues".
-
Another one:
Wow. This site is an utter mess. Time for me to move on to a new stock site. Too many problems with iStock this past year and I only foresee worse problems for 2011. Good luck guys. I'm moving on and not waiting around for you to fix your "issues".
Yep.
I think it's confusing too that the main bug thread is a sticky under Discussion, but yet people are directed to the Help area when they want to start a new thread. (Lobo locked a thread and sent the OP to the Help area). Geez.
-
Just remembering. The initial bugs from F5 still there. Like my uploads page and others. Now, with more bugs from new search, IS site have more bugs than Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
http://entomology.si.edu/ (http://entomology.si.edu/)
-
Well Roger M. has posted in the Payout thread that the Istockphoto office will be closed for a week from 24th Dec to 31st. I think we can take it that the bugs in the search, etc are unlikely to be fixed before that. Standby for long lunches, office parties and late starts from here on in. When the office re-opens next year they'll probably have forgotten all about the bugs that those pesky customers keep complaining about.
Seems strange to me that a 24 hour internet business actually shuts the office for an entire week (over several working days throughout the world). I wonder if Amazon will be shutting down for a week too?
-
Well Roger M. has posted in the Payout thread that the Istockphoto office will be closed for a week from 24th Dec to 31st. I think we can take it that the bugs in the search, etc are unlikely to be fixed before that. Standby for long lunches, office parties and late starts from here on in. When the office re-opens next year they'll probably have forgotten all about the bugs that those pesky customers keep complaining about.
Seems strange to me that a 24 hour internet business actually shuts the office for an entire week (over several working days throughout the world). I wonder if Amazon will be shutting down for a week too?
Thanks for the headsup Gostwyck. Guess I will have to trot on over and see when I need to make a payout request and ensure I get paid this year...
For anyone like me, who missed the payout schedule announcement, here's the thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=277632&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=277632&page=1)
Cutoff date for December requests was today. Cutoff to get the first payment on Jan 7 is Jan 3.
-
And another one:
Having the ability to filter out Agency and Vetta is a necessity for me. It's just crazy looking through all the photos that simply don't apply due to the price. I searched 'chef' in photos and it returned 91 agency / vetta images in the first 200!!!! What a complete waste of time sifting through it all trying to find a useable photo....
you know what? forget it.. im a broken record on this thing.
-
^^^ Istock is certainly going for it. Having spent a couple of months pissing off their entire contributor base it looks like it's the customer's turn to get rogered now. Amazing to witness what can happen when a business forgets it's core activity, i.e. licensing affordable imagery, in the reckless pursuit of short-term profits. That's definitely going to be 'unsustainable'.
-
They can kiss chikoppi good-bye:
Search no longer works for me. Not when I click the "search" button (nothing happens). Not when I type a search term in the field and hit "enter on the keyboard (nothing happens).
Do you really think customers should have to spend time troubleshooting or change browsers just to accomodate YOU?
Sorry iStockphoto. Most of your content can be found elsewhere - which is where I'll be.
-
They can kiss chikoppi good-bye:
Search no longer works for me. Not when I click the "search" button (nothing happens). Not when I type a search term in the field and hit "enter on the keyboard (nothing happens).
Do you really think customers should have to spend time troubleshooting or change browsers just to accomodate YOU?
Sorry iStockphoto. Most of your content can be found elsewhere - which is where I'll be.
Istockphoto's new Faceted Search facility truly is 'the gift that keeps on giving' ... to their competitors.
What is a 'Faceted Search' anyway? I've never knowingly had a 'faceted' thing before. I've had things with several sides or aspects, like my car or my house for example, but I've never described them as 'faceted'. Did they just invent the expression to confuse everyone?
-
Istockphoto's new Faceted Search facility truly is 'the gift that keeps on giving' ... to their competitors.
What is a 'Faceted Search' anyway? I've never knowingly had a 'faceted' thing before. I've had things with several sides or aspects, like my car or my house for example, but I've never described them as 'faceted'. Did they just invent the expression to confuse everyone?
Apparently not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search)
and way back in April 2008:
http://www.digital-web.com/articles/user_interface_implementations_of_faceted_browsing (http://www.digital-web.com/articles/user_interface_implementations_of_faceted_browsing)
-
Apparently not.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search[/url])
I don't think Istock's Fiasco Search, or whatever it is supposed to be called, qualifies for the Wiki definition because it dosen't actually work. Every time I to try to delve deeper it simply returns zero results.
In contrast on SS I can simply add additional words into the Search box and also, if required, other words into the Exclude box. It works perfectly every time ... right from the day they introduced it ... several years ago.
-
Apparently not.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search[/url])
I don't think Istock's Fiasco Search, or whatever it is supposed to be called, qualifies for the Wiki definition because it dosen't actually work. Every time I to try to delve deeper it simply returns zero results.
Yeah, well, ya know ...
Just about constantly since I joined they've had a vacancy for a QA specialist "can you break our software?". So I guess in four years, they've never found anyone who can.
Strange, since everyone else seems perfectly able to do it without even trying, even without all the qualifications on the list. Indeed, without even one of the fifteen 'required qualifications'.
Hmmmm.
-
Yeah, well, ya know ...
Just about constantly since I joined they've had a vacancy for a QA specialist "can you break our software?". So I guess in four years, they've never found anyone who can.
Strange, since everyone else seems perfectly able to do it without even trying, even without all the qualifications on the list. Indeed, without even one of the fifteen 'required qualifications'.
Hmmmm.
I'm not sure if that's funny or just tragic. I think they should start by finding someone that can say "Yes" to the question "can you make our software work?".
-
Yeah, well, ya know ...
Just about constantly since I joined they've had a vacancy for a QA specialist "can you break our software?". So I guess in four years, they've never found anyone who can.
Strange, since everyone else seems perfectly able to do it without even trying, even without all the qualifications on the list. Indeed, without even one of the fifteen 'required qualifications'.
Hmmmm.
Too funny.
-
Does anyone else think the Lobo pie flirt is getting old?
-
Does anyone else think the Lobo pie flirt is getting old?
me. totally.
the good news is that my port on SS is beginning to take off and I still dont have all my stuff on there. :)
-
Does anyone else think the Lobo pie flirt is getting old?
'Course not __ it's absolutely hilarious everytime (daily) that some simple schmuck (with no powers of original thought) brings it up. It's nearly as funny as all the (daily) references from the same pea-brained f*ck-wits to inspectors being paid in fish heads __ if that is possible! They are soooooooo funny.
-
Does anyone else think the Lobo pie flirt is getting old?
Oh my days! If I was them, I'd have bored myself out of my own head a long time ago. That kind of constant pseudo-teasing boot-licking is so annoying!
-
Does anyone else think the Lobo pie flirt is getting old?
'Course not __ it's absolutely hilarious everytime (daily) that some simple schmuck (with no powers of original thought) brings it up. It's nearly as funny as all the (daily) references from the same pea-brained f*ck-wits to inspectors being paid in fish heads __ if that is possible! They are soooooooo funny.
;D
-
Imho worse than the old pie-bootlicking are the 'Lobo's little helpers' who start to count down when someone posts something that's likely to be locked.
Eurghhh, annoys the sh*t out of me every time!
The search is broken and i think its more nefast than raising prices to scare customers away. (does anyone actually still believe they will implement the ability to filter out Vetta and agency? Im firmly convinced they DONT WANT TO and wont, otherwise it would have happened with this search update, c'mon, its not that difficult, the goodwill just isnt there.)
In my perfect world there'd be a migration to DT ;D
-
In my perfect world there'd be a migration to DT ;D
I'm already there. :D
-
;) Me too Cas
-
In my perfect world there'd be a migration to DT ;D
I'm already there. :D
Are you a buyer are you a buyer?! If not you should stay where you were you competition you! ;D ;) :P
Seriously tho, im seeing a big upswing in sales there since a month or so, but my portfolio is tiny and non-represental...add the wishful thinking factor and buyers are migrating in masses there!
-
Does anyone else think the Lobo pie flirt is getting old?
me. totally.
the good news is that my port on SS is beginning to take off and I still dont have all my stuff on there. :)
That is good news, jamirae. Well, good news for you, not for me! :)
I have also seen an upswing at DT, and really all of the other sites. I actually even got a second DL at stockfresh! I'm not talking a huge leap...but I am hopeful that when the holidays have passed that will translate into a substantial increase.
-
Are you a buyer are you a buyer?! If not you should stay where you were you competition you! ;D ;) :P
Don't worry. I am, and have only ever been, a buyer. :)
-
;) Me too Cas
me three. :)
yeah, I'm still waiting for my first sale at StockFresh, but for just having a small portion online at the other big 4, my sales have been doing well.
back on topic... I, too, believe that the Agency and Vetta filter thing is at the very bottom of the "to be fixed" list and doubt that it will ever happen. In the meantime more and more buyers get pissed and leave. As a buyer I wouldn't put up with that crap either and wouldn't even waste my time bitching about it in the forum. I'd just voice my opinion with my wallet - close it and leave the place. I'm still trying to figure out how it happened so quickly that iStock to tumbled down this road so hard and so fast.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how it happened so quickly that iStock to tumbled down this road so hard and so fast.
Greed has a way of doing that.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how it happened so quickly that iStock to tumbled down this road so hard and so fast.
I felt the same way about the economy and the housing market. One day, people were employed and enjoying their homes and family. Seems like the next day, BOOM, people are losing their jobs and their houses. I think it does have to do with greed and that it has been happening for awhile, but money got shifted around to cover the shortfalls and then one day, , guess what, there's no more money to be found to cover the shortfalls and then the company management starts raiding the worker bees.
-
the good news is that my port on SS is beginning to take off and I still dont have all my stuff on there. :)
This is great news! Happy your non-exclusivity is working out so well for you :)
I'm still trying to figure out how it happened so quickly that iStock to tumbled down this road so hard and so fast.
I felt the same way about the economy and the housing market. One day, people were employed and enjoying their homes and family. Seems like the next day, BOOM, people are losing their jobs and their houses. I think it does have to do with greed and that it has been happening for awhile, but money got shifted around to cover the shortfalls and then one day, , guess what, there's no more money to be found to cover the shortfalls and then the company management starts raiding the worker bees.
^^ Absolutely! It has been shocking to watch our economy implode the way it has. And it's doubly stressful to watch it happening in microcosm at Istock. It seems like bomb Kelly Thompson dropped in September has just continued to grow and destroy like some sort of mushroom cloud!
-
I was actually surprised the housing bubble bubbled as long as it did (and I was surprised how much it took down with it when it went). Now that was unsustainable. It also is amazing how most of the people who pushed for and benefited the most from the mess came out of it ahead.
It does make you wonder what kind of nonsense they were expecting behind the scenes at IS and what what going on to make it look like it was possible before they had to actually make changes to try to prop up the numbers.
Too bad we are the collateral damage.
-
from srjmarketing:
Wow. This site is an utter mess. Time for me to move on to a new stock site. Too many problems with iStock this past year and I only foresee worse problems for 2011. Good luck guys. I'm moving on and not waiting around for you to fix your "issues".
Just curious - are the search functions at Getty Images, and at Thinkstock still working? Maybe that should tell us something... :(
-
the good news is that my port on SS is beginning to take off and I still dont have all my stuff on there. :)
This is great news! Happy your non-exclusivity is working out so well for you :)
thanks, me too! :)
I'm still trying to figure out how it happened so quickly that iStock to tumbled down this road so hard and so fast.
I felt the same way about the economy and the housing market. One day, people were employed and enjoying their homes and family. Seems like the next day, BOOM, people are losing their jobs and their houses. I think it does have to do with greed and that it has been happening for awhile, but money got shifted around to cover the shortfalls and then one day, , guess what, there's no more money to be found to cover the shortfalls and then the company management starts raiding the worker bees.
^^ Absolutely! It has been shocking to watch our economy implode the way it has. And it's doubly stressful to watch it happening in microcosm at Istock. It seems like bomb Kelly Thompson dropped in September has just continued to grow and destroy like some sort of mushroom cloud!
yep. totally agree.
-
from srjmarketing:
Wow. This site is an utter mess. Time for me to move on to a new stock site. Too many problems with iStock this past year and I only foresee worse problems for 2011. Good luck guys. I'm moving on and not waiting around for you to fix your "issues".
Just curious - are the search functions at Getty Images, and at Thinkstock still working? Maybe that should tell us something... :(
good point. but aren't they all separately programmed? As in they have their own groups of programmers working on their website or is the search engine something different?
-
Just curious - are the search functions at Getty Images, and at Thinkstock still working? Maybe that should tell us something... :(
good point. but aren't they all separately programmed? As in they have their own groups of programmers working on their website or is the search engine something different?
Yeah, you're right Jami. I am sure they have separate programmers. I just find it a bit hard to believe that they can't seem to get Istock running as well as the other sites in the "Getty Family", and it makes me wonder if this could be part of an effort to drive traffic to their higher, and lower end sites, rather than mid-range Istock.
Probably just conspiracy oriented rambling on my part. But the difficulties they have having with their search engine seem to defy rationality, IMO.
-
Just curious - are the search functions at Getty Images, and at Thinkstock still working? Maybe that should tell us something... :(
good point. but aren't they all separately programmed? As in they have their own groups of programmers working on their website or is the search engine something different?
Yeah, you're right Jami. I am sure they have separate programmers. I just find it a bit hard to believe that they can't seem to get Istock running as well as the other sites in the "Getty Family", and it makes me wonder if this could be part of an effort to drive traffic to their higher, and lower end sites, rather than mid-range Istock.
Probably just conspiracy oriented rambling on my part. But the difficulties they have having with their search engine seem to defy rationality, IMO.
"defy rationality" seems to be the MO these days at iStock. :) anyhow.. I understand you're thinking but I would think that would contradict all the steps they've been actively taking to move Getty content onto iStock. such as the ingestion of the Agency stuff, the instant exclusivity status for those new Agency artists and the dropping of the separate Getty upload program/process for iStock artists.
I don't think the search thing is a purposeful fail, I think they just executed it really, really poorly and are now paying a huge price that they certainly will never admit to.
-
I don't think the search thing is a purposeful fail, I think they just executed it really, really poorly and are now paying a huge price that they certainly will never admit to.
I see your point. Brings to mind the quote by Napoleon: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"
OTOH, I think I like Heinlein's take on it: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
;D
-
I don't think the search thing is a purposeful fail, I think they just executed it really, really poorly and are now paying a huge price that they certainly will never admit to.
I see your point. Brings to mind the quote by Napoleon: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"
OTOH, I think I like Heinlein's take on it: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
;D
ha! hadn't heard the Heinlein version, love it! I think you are right on there!
-
The logo program is still MIA. Still no official launch date. Not even a "soon". Not even an indication that it might be launched in 2011. I wonder how many submissions they are still getting. Is anyone even applying to the program anymore?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=234232&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=234232&page=1)
I think there aren't going to be anymore customers left by the time they get the thing launched at the rate they are going.
-
from srjmarketing:
Wow. This site is an utter mess. Time for me to move on to a new stock site. Too many problems with iStock this past year and I only foresee worse problems for 2011. Good luck guys. I'm moving on and not waiting around for you to fix your "issues".
Just curious - are the search functions at Getty Images, and at Thinkstock still working? Maybe that should tell us something... :(
The company I work for has an account with Thinkstock and the search works fine.
The logo program is still MIA. Still no official launch date. Not even a "soon". Not even an indication that it might be launched in 2011. I wonder how many submissions they are still getting. Is anyone even applying to the program anymore?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=234232&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=234232&page=1[/url])
I think there aren't going to be anymore customers left by the time they get the thing launched at the rate they are going.
I stopped uploading logos in Jan 2010 when the logo program was supposed to launch. I'm not going to spend time making logos for something that may never happen. I don't know if others stopped uploading too, but the in the logo forum challenges (which span two months) it is basically the same 3-4 people who participate. I am sure many others are as disappointed as me in this program. They launched it with such fanfare and then it puttered out.
I am not a photographer but I hope this does not happen to the editorial program since it has so many folks excited.
-
The logo program is still MIA. Still no official launch date. Not even a "soon". Not even an indication that it might be launched in 2011. I wonder how many submissions they are still getting. Is anyone even applying to the program anymore?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=234232&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=234232&page=1[/url])
I think there aren't going to be anymore customers left by the time they get the thing launched at the rate they are going.
yeah.. I was wondering about that too. I am in the program, but only submitted one logo awhile back and it was rejected because I didn't follow the directions. (duh :) ).. anyhow, I never resubmitted and now it doesn't really seem there is much incentive to do that anyway.
-
I gave up on updating this list. I can't follow the fiascos. It's a lot of new fiascos everyday. No stats updates, no latest uploads, IS people say that the errors were corrected but in fact still there... It's a Herculean task.
Sorry, it's not sustainable.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
- New faceted search start fiasco.
-
I know what you mean about keeping up. But you have done a pretty good job.
-
I gave up on updating this list. I can't follow the fiascos. It's a lot of new fiascos everyday. No stats updates, no latest uploads, IS people say that the errors were corrected but in fact still there... It's a Herculean task.
Sorry, it's not sustainable.
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
- New faceted search start fiasco.
Sorry, it's not sustainable.
LOL - that sums it all up!
-
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
-
Meanwhile, Mr Thompson claims against Apple via Twitter. Bugs, that annoying thing...
"Is it just me, or is it totally cathartic to update all the apps on your #ipad & #iphone?"
-
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
They can also seemingly sustain a full week of vacation for the entire istock office. I'm assuming it's a paid vacation when they're closed next week, and not a furlough. Although anyone with inside info feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
-
ROFLMAO!
-
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
They can also seemingly sustain a full week of vacation for the entire istock office. I'm assuming it's a paid vacation when they're closed next week, and not a furlough. Although anyone with inside info feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I thought the exact same thing.
-
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
-------------------------
In the short term I totally agree they will muddle through like they always have. But longer term, I'm not so sure that they can. I think they are busy ripping apart their foundation both with customers and contributors. Its kind of like that game where you have a stack of wooden bricks and you have to keep pulling them out one by one until the whole thing collapses. :-\
-
I think they are busy ripping apart their foundation both with customers and contributors. Its kind of like that game where you have a stack of wooden bricks and you have to keep pulling them out one by one until the whole thing collapses. :-\
Shush! We know that ... but do we want to stop the most arrogant, the meanest and the greediest agency sleep-walking their way into catastrophic demise? Tricky one really.
-
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
-------------------------
In the short term I totally agree they will muddle through like they always have. But longer term, I'm not so sure that they can. I think they are busy ripping apart their foundation both with customers and contributors. Its kind of like that game where you have a stack of wooden bricks and you have to keep pulling them out one by one until the whole thing collapses. :-\
I don't know what do you mean with "the long term", but I had read comments like yours five and six years ago. By luck, I didn't listen. Now I'm earning at IS 15x what I was earning then.
-
[quote author=loop link=topic=11547.msg176497#msg176497 date=1293067778]
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
-------------------------
In the short term I totally agree they will muddle through like they always have. But longer term, I'm not so sure that they can. I think they are busy ripping apart their foundation both with customers and contributors. Its kind of like that game where you have a stack of wooden bricks and you have to keep pulling them out one by one until the whole thing collapses. :-\
[/i]
I don't know what do you mean with "the long term", but I had read comments like yours five and six years ago. By luck, I didn't listen. Now I'm earning at IS 15x what I was earning then. And that is not opinion nor prediction: it's a fact.
[/quote][/i]
-
I wonder just how many thousands of dollars they are stealing from you guys daily with their crappy record keeping.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280472&page=12#post5447542 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280472&page=12#post5447542)
-
I wonder just how many thousands of dollars they are stealing from you guys daily with their crappy record keeping.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280472&page=12#post5447542[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280472&page=12#post5447542[/url])
Yeah, they aren't even bothering to give correct accountings anymore. They say you've been paid, so gosh darn it, you've been paid. How dare you ask what, when, where and how! They don't have to provide that information! Ug, the arrogance. >:(
-
And of course, they hope it will all be forgotten about by the time they come back from their paid vacation.
-
[quote author=loop link=topic=11547.msg176497#msg176497 date=1293067778]
IS does seem to be able to sustain these blunders though. It is somewhat impressive in a sort of train wreck way.
-------------------------
In the short term I totally agree they will muddle through like they always have. But longer term, I'm not so sure that they can. I think they are busy ripping apart their foundation both with customers and contributors. Its kind of like that game where you have a stack of wooden bricks and you have to keep pulling them out one by one until the whole thing collapses. :-\
[/i]
I don't know what do you mean with "the long term", but I had read comments like yours five and six years ago. By luck, I didn't listen. Now I'm earning at IS 15x what I was earning then. And that is not opinion nor prediction: it's a fact.
[/i]
[/quote]
------------------------
I was not making comments like that 5-6 years ago. I'm a long time Istock exclusive in the process of dropping my crown. I could never had imagined I would do so 6 months ago.
-
I'm a long time Istock exclusive in the process of dropping my crown. I could never had imagined I would do so 6 months ago.
Good for you and well done. Trust me __ it's for the best (for all of us).
-
I don't know what do you mean with "the long term", but I had read comments like yours five and six years ago. By luck, I didn't listen. Now I'm earning at IS 15x what I was earning then.
You must have a much better memory than I do. I've been doing this for 6 years, and from what I can remember, the only people trashing Istock were the trad stock photographers whose lunch we were all eating.
To the best of my recollection, Istock's contributors were generally happy, enthusiastic, and optimistic about the future of the site and the industry. Yes, there were always complaints about new upgrades that didn't go well (V8, disambiguation), but mainly I think the community as a whole felt like Istock was a big success and we were happy and lucky to be along for the ride.
This widespread discontent and cynicism among exclusives, independents, and buyers, seems like a new phenomenon that started this year. For buyers the grumbling seems to start when there were multiple price raises and the collection was broken into a variety of price points early in the year. For contributors it seemed the panic button was triggered with Kelly's announcements in the beginning of September. What is amazing to me is how fast the destruction has spread.
But no, I definitely don't remember worries and pessimism like we are seeing now before the last year.
ETA: I also don't remember anyone EVER having reason to question Istock's accurate paying of contributors before the last couple of months.
-
Another apparent fiasco:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542)
-
Another apparent fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url])
Yeah, that messed with my head big time yesterday. Showed I had an extended license sale, but did not show the size of file sold and the royalty looked all wrong:(
I called CR and they gave me a half assed explanation that I only partially understood. Weak.
Thanks for the link to the forum discussion, now I get what happened.
-
Another apparent fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url])
More of a software "we didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type thing. I'm glad to see that they are upping the value of the collections, and picking up the bill for it. Aside from the reporting fiasco, this is a plus on both sides.
-
More of a ... "we didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type thing.
Seems to be their MO these days.
-
I don't know what do you mean with "the long term", but I had read comments like yours five and six years ago. By luck, I didn't listen. Now I'm earning at IS 15x what I was earning then.
You must have a much better memory than I do. I've been doing this for 6 years, and from what I can remember, the only people trashing Istock were the trad stock photographers whose lunch we were all eating.
To the best of my recollection, Istock's contributors were generally happy, enthusiastic, and optimistic about the future of the site and the industry. Yes, there were always complaints about new upgrades that didn't go well (V8, disambiguation), but mainly I think the community as a whole felt like Istock was a big success and we were happy and lucky to be along for the ride.
This widespread discontent and cynicism among exclusives, independents, and buyers, seems like a new phenomenon that started this year. For buyers the grumbling seems to start when there were multiple price raises and the collection was broken into a variety of price points early in the year. For contributors it seemed the panic button was triggered with Kelly's announcements in the beginning of September. What is amazing to me is how fast the destruction has spread.
But no, I definitely don't remember worries and pessimism like we are seeing now before the last year.
ETA: I also don't remember anyone EVER having reason to question Istock's accurate paying of contributors before the last couple of months.
exactly what I was thinking, except that I think the widespread discontent and cynicsim among contributors started brewing with the canister change fiasco -- then they backed off on that and just when everyone starting feeling okay, WHAM! the RC announcement.
-
Another apparent fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url])
More of a software "we didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type thing. I'm glad to see that they are upping the value of the collections, and picking up the bill for it. Aside from the reporting fiasco, this is a plus on both sides.
Dosen't anyone at IS test the software changes before pushing them through live?
In keeping with the spirit of this thread: FAIL
-
Another fiasco - The Stockey's drawing. It's happening "soon". This one was well advertised too. Did anyone even know about it? :D
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=283382&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=283382&page=1)
-
Another fiasco - The Stockey's drawing. It's happening "soon". This one was well advertised too. Did anyone even know about it? :D
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=283382&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=283382&page=1[/url])
No. But I'm not really interested anyway.
-
Another apparent fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url])
More of a software "we didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type thing. I'm glad to see that they are upping the value of the collections, and picking up the bill for it. Aside from the reporting fiasco, this is a plus on both sides.
I no longer have any Vetta images, so I've no skin in this game directly, but it seems to me there are two worrying aspects to this.
One is that they didn't take a few minutes to think through a proposed change - this shoot from the hip mentality continues in spite of the many times it has caused problems.
Two is that they're playing with the redeemed credits the contributor earns - reducing them, effectively - as a way to deal with the side effects of a misguided price increase (when they doubled Vetta prices and then halved the sales).
It used to be that the legal guarantee earned a contributor 100 RCs (even though no cash in royalties). So for an old Vetta sale of a Large with a legal guarantee, a contributor would have received 40 + 100 RCs, but now it's just 70 - half the RCs for the same items.
I honestly doubt that very many buyers were purchasing the legal guarantee, so giving away something of dubious value "free" would not have enticed me, but they can at least try to advertise they're sweetening the pot at the higher price.
-
This invention of the magical "guarantee", charging an arm and a leg for it, then suddenly including it as an "extra value" in overpriced collections just smacks of unethical sales tactics. A variation on the old game of retailers jacking the prices then offering a "sale".
Sorry to hear it will also affect people's RC counts. But then, nothing they do surprises me at this point.
-
This invention of the magical "guarantee", charging an arm and a leg for it, then suddenly including it as an "extra value" in overpriced collections just smacks of unethical sales tactics. A variation on the old game of retailers jacking the prices then offering a "sale".
Sorry to hear it will also affect people's RC counts. But then, nothing they do surprises me at this point.
Jonathan will attest that many companies will not work with agencies that do not offer some sort of indemnity or warrant or legal what have you to protect them. Adding the guarantee for free to the higher priced collections will probably make more in sales RCs than it would have in the paid for RCs.
-
Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable. ::)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2)
-
Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable. ::)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2[/url])
Don't you just love the stupid act they put on?
-
Another apparent fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542[/url])
That, a fiasco? That's nice. It would be better to keep 40% for Vetta and Agency sales, true, but in just two days seems to have had a better effect on V and A sales that the sale at minus prices, and the stats "messing up" doesn't matter at all to me, after all I can see Vetta sales ordered by date. Well, nothing more, it's better being short and not wasting the time needed for those dedicated to the Fiasco Warching Mission.
-
Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable. ::)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2[/url])
The real problem was right back when they decided to call vectors 'illustrations' rather than 'vectors', not anticipating the consequences of their actions. Someone who doesn't know what a vector is shouldn't be buying one.
-
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!! ::)
You can call it a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and if it's a$$ isn't watertight, it ain't a duck...
-
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!! ::)
They always did.
-
Well, I'm just curious to know what they are going to do about people who upload to sites that require an accompanying JPG of the vector image, or want to sell a JPG of the vector image. What then? That's where their definition really falls apart. Once it becomes a JPG is it an illustration or a photo?
-
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!! ::)
They always did.
Fair enough. It was always stupid, but until now it didn't really matter. If they are going to make it an issue of exclusivity, they really need a better definition, right?
-
Well, I'm just curious to know what they are going to do about people who upload to sites that require an accompanying JPG of the vector image, or want to sell a JPG of the vector image. What then? That's where their definition really falls apart. Once it becomes a JPG is it an illustration or a photo?
Exactly!
I don't see why other sites' requirements should have bearing on Istock exclusivity. This is just another muddy swamp Istock has created for its contributors.
-
so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?
-
so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?
Up until this point, they should not have had them on other sites, as most exclusive contributors realize any raster in a "photo" and thus, no-go on other sites. So that is a non-issue.
-
so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?
Up until this point, they should not have had them on other sites, as most exclusive contributors realize any raster in a "photo" and thus, no-go on other sites. So that is a non-issue.
So that's always been the case? If that is so it really does no good to offer non exclusive illustration to exclusive photographer's. Doesn't make a bit of sense.
-
so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?
Up until this point, they should not have had them on other sites, as most exclusive contributors realize any raster in a "photo" and thus, no-go on other sites. So that is a non-issue.
So that's always been the case? If that is so it really does no good to offer non exclusive illustration to exclusive photographer's. Doesn't make a bit of sense.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Looks like you will not be able to be an independent vector contributor and independent raster contributor, but not the other way around. Again, a decision which was not carefully thought through, or certainly not researched. Although it doesn't affect me personally, it certainly lowers my estimation of, and confidence in, 'them in charge' by another notch.
-
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!! ::)
They always did.
Fair enough. It was always stupid, but until now it didn't really matter. If they are going to make it an issue of exclusivity, they really need a better definition, right?
It actually mattered to me. I have certain photos which are of fairly-common-subject X, but their (almost) USP is that they were taken in location Y. But there are many 3D photo-realistic images of X which, since they don't exist, so have no location, are allowed to have as many locations as they like in their keywords, including Y. So they turn up in searches for photos of X, Y. Grrrr. I quizzed Ethan about this, and he promised to look into it. As nothing has changed, I'm guessing it was deemed to be OK.
-
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!! ::)
You can call it a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and if it's a$$ isn't watertight, it ain't a duck...
This is OT, but Lisa, I just love the expressions you come up with! LOL!
-
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!! ::)
You can call it a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and if it's a$$ isn't watertight, it ain't a duck...[/b]
This is OT, but Lisa, I just love the expressions you come up with! LOL!
And I wish someone would tell the iStock inspectors. I don't know how many non-ducks I've wikied: swans, geese, herons, moorhens, coots, grebes (oh, so often!) and even a flamingo (just the one IIRC). But still there's at least one a day slips through. And I won't be wiki-ing once I reach what would have been, but won't be (in %), Gold.
-
It actually mattered to me. I have certain photos which are of fairly-common-subject X, but their (almost) USP is that they were taken in location Y. But there are many 3D photo-realistic images of X which, since they don't exist, so have no location, are allowed to have as many locations as they like in their keywords, including Y. So they turn up in searches for photos of X, Y. Grrrr. I quizzed Ethan about this, and he promised to look into it. As nothing has changed, I'm guessing it was deemed to be OK.
Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords. ???
On the duck's posterior, I wish I could take credit, but the guys my husband has worked with in construction use the term "tighter than a duck's a$$" all the time. I think it is a hoot, and was happy to throw it in there for emphasis. Glad you liked it Cathy! ;D
-
Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords. ???
I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.
Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).
-
Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords. ???
I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.
Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).
In actual (real) photos, iStock says that only the real location can be keyworded, for exactly that reason.
Individual offenders can be wikied, but in the past at least there have been so many that it's worth reporting them for a bulk wiki. In the past, I've suggested e.g. "Caribbean" AND "Mediterranean", (88 have snuck in since the last bulk wiki) but you can substitute just about any similar: Maldives, Seycelles, "Indian Ocean".
256 ATM for Caribbean AND Maldives; 1029 France AND Italy (a few are relevant)
I have also suggested that whenever a bulk wiki is undertaken, note of the offending terms should be circulated to inspectors, but that either hasn't been done or the inspectors are ignoring the notification. (Or, of course, people are sneakily putting the multiple locations in after acceptance, but it's usually obvious when that's been done.)
-
Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords. ???
I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.
Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).
In actual (real) photos, iStock says that only the real location can be keyworded, for exactly that reason.
Individual offenders can be wikied, but in the past at least there have been so many that it's worth reporting them for a bulk wiki. In the past, I've suggested e.g. "Caribbean" AND "Mediterranean", (88 have snuck in since the last bulk wiki) but you can substitute just about any similar: Maldives, Seycelles, "Indian Ocean".
256 ATM for Caribbean AND Maldives; 1029 France AND Italy (a few are relevant)
I have also suggested that whenever a bulk wiki is undertaken, note of the offending terms should be circulated to inspectors, but that either hasn't been done or the inspectors are ignoring the notification. (Or, of course, people are sneakily putting the multiple locations in after acceptance, but it's usually obvious when that's been done.)
OMG this so annoys me too. I am a graphic designer for a cruise line and we need images from specific and actual locations. We always have to check the keywords listed and if there is any kind of "multiple location" issue, we just don't download it. The contributor make think this helps their images be seen but it just keeps my company from downloading it (and we buy a lot of travel images). And unless I am in a super hurry I always site for wrong keywords.
-
Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords. ???
I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.
Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).
In actual (real) photos, iStock says that only the real location can be keyworded, for exactly that reason.
Individual offenders can be wikied, but in the past at least there have been so many that it's worth reporting them for a bulk wiki. In the past, I've suggested e.g. "Caribbean" AND "Mediterranean", (88 have snuck in since the last bulk wiki) but you can substitute just about any similar: Maldives, Seycelles, "Indian Ocean".
256 ATM for Caribbean AND Maldives; 1029 France AND Italy (a few are relevant)
I have also suggested that whenever a bulk wiki is undertaken, note of the offending terms should be circulated to inspectors, but that either hasn't been done or the inspectors are ignoring the notification. (Or, of course, people are sneakily putting the multiple locations in after acceptance, but it's usually obvious when that's been done.)
OMG this so annoys me too. I am a graphic designer for a cruise line and we need images from specific and actual locations. We always have to check the keywords listed and if there is any kind of "multiple location" issue, we just don't download it. The contributor make think this helps their images be seen but it just keeps my company from downloading it (and we buy a lot of travel images). And unless I am in a super hurry I always site for wrong keywords.
---------------------------------------
BK, thanks for taking the time to report the wrong keywords. Were I a buyer, I would be very tempted to send a site mail to those contributors I had passed over because of the "multiple location" issue to let them know they had lost a sale because of how they keyworded. Not suggesting that you do so, but wish it would happen.
-
Looks like we now have the Fraud Fiasco.
-
Looks like we now have the Fraud Fiasco.
and it has now been confirmed to be fraud (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5470662).
-
Just freakin incredible.
So someone has "hacked" in, artificially inflating sales of Agency and Vetta files (for the most part), the biggest portion of which has been purchased mostly from one contributor, but sometime after Jan. 1 all the credits will need to be returned (taken back from contributors) and the site will then be secured. ::) Is it just me, or do I smell fish (not pie)?
-
Just freakin incredible.
So someone has "hacked" in, artificially inflating sales of Agency and Vetta files (for the most part), the biggest portion of which has been purchased mostly from one contributor, but sometime after Jan. 1 all the credits will need to be returned (taken back from contributors) and the site will then be secured. ::) Is it just me, or do I smell fish (not pie)?
well something smells, but I'd have to say it's got something to do with the programmers crapping their pants after finding out this happened. :)
all the millions of dollars they make and iStock can't afford to hire a good security analyst to check for holes in their programming code? I guess I shouldn't be surprised since they can't seem to launch a redesign without rampant bugs in it either. FAIL
... and the hits just keep on comin'!
-
Another day, another fiasco. :D
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286542 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286542)
-
I don't see where you're coming up with 'hacked in'. Anyone can make an account. How they fund that is where the fraudulent part comes in.
-
Another day, another fiasco. :D
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286542[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286542[/url])
Wow! Exclusives are justifiably upset to have their content excluded. I am sure it is just a temporary bug (to add to the many others!). Surely the intention is to include the exclusive "main collection" content in that search. I doubt enough buyers are finding or using that filter at the moment to make any real difference in sales.
I'm only one person, so maybe not statistically significant, but I have not seen any jump in my sales today that would indicate this feature is being used.
-
@sean:
So can anyone add "Main" to the list of collections? I thought IS was never going to allow a search to happen that way? And even if they decided they were going to allow a search for the Main collection, I thought it wasn't supposed to happen until after the New Year?
I'm saying "hacked in" because I ran across some weirdness in the way the site was acting yesterday, but you are correct, perhaps it's just one of the many screwups perpetrated by the IT people who are working on the site.
-
I don't see where you're coming up with 'hacked in'. Anyone can make an account. How they fund that is where the fraudulent part comes in.
true they could use a fake/stolen CC or someone could have found a way to hack into the system and arbitrarily given themselves a bunch of credits or hacked the purchasing side and made "sales" go through that should not have. so it could have been a funding fraud or a fraud on the part of a hack. we don't have all the facts so can't really determine.
-
If you read through the thread about the Main collection you'll see that it's only available on certain browsers. It either wasn't supposed to be released yet or the re-design of the search isn't finished and they will be adding an Exclusive button as well. Either way it's another fail on IS's part.
-
I don't see where you're coming up with 'hacked in'. Anyone can make an account. How they fund that is where the fraudulent part comes in.
true they could use a fake/stolen CC or someone could have found a way to hack into the system and arbitrarily given themselves a bunch of credits or hacked the purchasing side and made "sales" go through that should not have. so it could have been a funding fraud or a fraud on the part of a hack. we don't have all the facts so can't really determine.
Te fact that IS first reaction was limit the credit packages available to 120 strongly suggests thats it is CC fraud, no hack,
-
If you read through the thread about the Main collection you'll see that it's only available on certain browsers. It either wasn't supposed to be released yet or the re-design of the search isn't finished and they will be adding an Exclusive button as well. Either way it's another fail on IS's part.
I believe that when Amazon try something new, it's only available on certain servers as they test it, but because there isn't a forum as such, others don't know about it.
However, it's bad enough they already reneged on their word (that there would not be a way of excluding exclusive files, and there is by choosing Vetta and Agency only, excluding Exc and Exc+) and now they're trying out ways of keeping exclusive files out of the 'main' collection. Why on earth suddenly introduce this when there's just about no-one around?
I just don't understand why so many people are leaping up and down and woo-waying about editorial (as if there were no options): is this a company we can fully trust any more?
-
...and now they're trying out ways of keeping exclusive files out of the 'main' collection. Why on earth suddenly introduce this when there's just about no-one around?
I just don't understand why so many people are leaping up and down and woo-waying about editorial (as if there were no options): is this a company we can fully trust any more?
I really think this was a goof. The main collection definitely includes exclusive files, and the 1-90 credit range under the "main" checkbox clearly suggests that exclusive files were meant to be included.
As a non-exclusive, of course, it would benefit me to have non-exclusive files searchable as a collection, but I really don't think that's what this is about.
IMHO, exclusives really don't need to worry about being intentionally shut out of any of the searches. I would, however, be extremely worried about the level of mistakes and glitches.
-
Oh boy. More reprecussions from a) the staff taking vacation and b) their slow response to the fraud. Poor buyer. Someone should suggest they shop elsewhere. I don't understand why iStock always expects buyers to jump through hoops (ie change browsers because site doesn't work in one) for their eff ups.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286672&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286672&page=1)
-
Posted By joyze:
Happy Holiday's everyone! This is one of many features we will be testing which is why it is only visible to some and not to all. We're open to any feedback you have regarding this tested feature and any others that we may test in the future. We'll continue to make tweaks to the tests to determine what works and what doesn't.
Doesn't that sound like an automated response from a computer or something? It hardly seems like it could have been typed by a human hand. LOL. If you try hard enough, you can hear the computer voice saying it. :D
That said...most pathetic response ever. What's bigger than "epic fail"? Because iStock has gone there. Wowsers.
-
{Added: see note at bottom}
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286742&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286742&page=1)
In case that gets deleted, an example files the OP mentioned was:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=15017498 (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=15017498)
which at the time of posting was priced at 1 credit for an XSm -> 10 credits for L.
[Ah, it seems that the contributor has only recently become exclusive, and it's a 'hiccup', not an 'epic fail'.]
-
{Added: see note at bottom}
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286742&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286742&page=1[/url])
In case that gets deleted, an example files the OP mentioned was:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=15017498[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=15017498[/url])
which at the time of posting was priced at 1 credit for an XSm -> 10 credits for L.
[Ah, it seems that the contributor has only recently become exclusive, and it's a 'hiccup', not an 'epic fail'.]
Oh my gosh, it is literally just one thing after another. I think they should roll back F5! to the old design. It worked great (as far as we know).
-
Not to mention the current sitemail problem: when you hit 'send mail' you get a 404 message.
I thought I'd suddenly been banned from SM, but it's now been reported on the help forum.
Probably mostly irrelevant to buying/selling, so again, a hiccup, not an 'epic fail'.
-
OMG, it's like a car driving down the road and as it goes along one part, then another, then another falls out. Pretty soon all the parts will have dropped out the bottom and it'll just stop working.
-
OMG, it's like a car driving down the road and as it goes along one part, then another, then another falls out. Pretty soon all the parts will have dropped out the bottom and it'll just stop working.
Looks like another part fell off. :) I saw a buyer on twitter report a little while ago that they were trying to buy images, but they're getting a 404 when the download tries to start. This is all so hard to fathom. At this point, I can't understand why they don't roll back to a working version of the site.
-
Not to mention the current sitemail problem: when you hit 'send mail' you get a 404 message.
I thought I'd suddenly been banned from SM, but it's now been reported on the help forum.
Probably mostly irrelevant to buying/selling, so again, a hiccup, not an 'epic fail'.
It's probably because they are getting bombarded with site mails over all this disastrous current events and the servers can't handle the overload. ???
-
Not to mention the current sitemail problem: when you hit 'send mail' you get a 404 message.
I thought I'd suddenly been banned from SM, but it's now been reported on the help forum.
Probably mostly irrelevant to buying/selling, so again, a hiccup, not an 'epic fail'.
It's probably because they are getting bombarded with site mails over all this disastrous current events and the servers can't handle the overload. ???
Yeah, they're getting 404s when they raise a support ticket too. Like the SMs, they're probably going through, but the 404 is disconcerting.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286842&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286842&page=1)
-
apparently they just closed the store down for the holidays. who needs to make money when you should be out doing something interesting rather than visiting iStock to BUY, SELL or POST (in the forums)?
In the words of iStock CEO KKThompons:
"Now go do something more interesting! Merry ho-ho"
-
Doesn't everyone just dread the New Year. Just wonder what disaster's are going to happen New Years Day.
-
Doesn't everyone just dread the New Year. Just wonder what disaster's are going to happen New Years Day.
I don't know about NY day, but definitely the first week or two of the New Year things are probably going to be hitting the fan. I both dread it and at the same time would like it to be over with so I can stop being in suspense.
-
Doesn't everyone just dread the New Year. Just wonder what disaster's are going to happen New Years Day.
I don't know about NY day, but definitely the first week or two of the New Year things are probably going to be hitting the fan. I both dread it and at the same time would like it to be over with so I can stop being in suspense.
I know with everything going on at iStock, it takes the enjoyment out of microstock. Now it just seems like one of those jobs you dread going to every Monday morning. :-\
-
It's so weird. When I read that announcement of the office shutting down over the holidays I had a premonition that the site was going to malfunction. Never would have predicted to this extent though. Every day brings something new.
-
It's so weird. When I read that announcement of the office shutting down over the holidays I had a premonition that the site was going to malfunction. Never would have predicted to this extent though. Every day brings something new.
If this continues....we'll all need to be put on antidepressants.
-
It's so weird. When I read that announcement of the office shutting down over the holidays I had a premonition that the site was going to malfunction. Never would have predicted to this extent though. Every day brings something new.
If this continues....we'll all need to be put on antidepressants.
Maybe that's what all the happy talk crowd at IS has been taking all these years- " Woo Yay " brand antidepressants! ( And they are made by a company that H&F has a big stake in!) The conspiracy idea could really go to a whole new level...
-
It's so weird. When I read that announcement of the office shutting down over the holidays I had a premonition that the site was going to malfunction. Never would have predicted to this extent though. Every day brings something new.
If this continues....we'll all need to be put on antidepressants.
Maybe that's what all the happy talk crowd at IS has been taking all these years- " Woo Yay " brand antidepressants! ( And they are made by a company that H&F has a big stake in!) The conspiracy idea could really go to a whole new level...
ROFL!!!!!
-
If this continues....we'll all need to be put on antidepressants.
Maybe that's what all the happy talk crowd at IS has been taking all these years- " Woo Yay " brand antidepressants! ( And they are made by a company that H&F has a big stake in!) The conspiracy idea could really go to a whole new level...
LOL! Only problem is that when those Woo Yay pills wear off there are some wicked withdrawls!!
-
I don't think they are anti-depressants, I think they are hallucinogens! :D
-
wow. Twitter is going crazy with buyers pissed about getting 404 errors when they try to download an image. another big iStock #FAIL!
-
wow. Twitter is going crazy with buyers pissed about getting 404 errors when they try to download an image. another big iStock #FAIL!
Jamie, how can I see that? I have a twitter account, but don't do much with it.
-
wow. Twitter is going crazy with buyers pissed about getting 404 errors when they try to download an image. another big iStock #FAIL!
Jamie, how can I see that? I have a twitter account, but don't do much with it.
Never mind, think I found it. @iStock
-
Doesn't everyone just dread the New Year. Just wonder what disaster's are going to happen New Years Day.
I don't know about NY day, but definitely the first week or two of the New Year things are probably going to be hitting the fan. I both dread it and at the same time would like it to be over with so I can stop being in suspense.
Oh no, they've been practising the code for clawing money back from us since October (at least). This one will go well. ;)
-
wow. Twitter is going crazy with buyers pissed about getting 404 errors when they try to download an image. another big iStock #FAIL!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286842&page=1#post5478732 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286842&page=1#post5478732)
"people are on to it"
-
wow. Twitter is going crazy with buyers pissed about getting 404 errors when they try to download an image. another big iStock #FAIL!
Jamie, how can I see that? I have a twitter account, but don't do much with it.
Never mind, think I found it. @iStock
yeah, I just set up a search column on my "TweetDeck" app (iphone) for anything with 'istock' in it and I see every post that contains it. I get some stock market stuff (not photography stock :) ) but otherwise it works out pretty well. I think you can do that on web interface, but I haven't used that as much as my iphone app.
-
More parts falling off the car. Unbelievable.
-
I think the buyers' 'ejector seat' is working better than ever though...
-
wow. Twitter is going crazy with buyers pissed about getting 404 errors when they try to download an image. another big iStock #FAIL!
Jamie, how can I see that? I have a twitter account, but don't do much with it.
Never mind, think I found it. @iStock
yeah, I just set up a search column on my "TweetDeck" app (iphone) for anything with 'istock' in it and I see every post that contains it. I get some stock market stuff (not photography stock :) ) but otherwise it works out pretty well. I think you can do that on web interface, but I haven't used that as much as my iphone app.
Yep, I have Peep on my Droid, just set it up to follow istock. I don't know why though...just more of the same old same old.
-
Wow.. I need to catch up on terminology... you have a what on your what? :D
-
I think this frustrated buyer sums it up well....
Posted By GlitschkaStudios:
Your website is so bug ridden you should have ORKIN as a sponsor. I just bought $350 worth of credit and nearly every photo I've included in my album that the client signed off on gets me a 404 error when attempting to order? (Of course no 404 error when taking my money) WTH? Your customer service number cycles me through in seconds and than hangs up? Can you really call it customer support when someone phones you, tweets you, posts on Facebook, emails you, and now posts on your forum and you don't adequately responds?
-
A small thing, yes, but just another part that has fallen from the car. Does anything on iStock function properly anymore?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286722&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286722&page=1)
-
What we are experiencing at iStock is incompetence and gross mismanagement. As CEO of a technology company, the Board would fire my as* in a heart beat if I ran the business and produced a website with the magnitude of problems and lack of testing and Q/C we are experiencing. On top of all the issues they close the shop and take a vacation. This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance. I don't see a long term future with iStock.
Think about other arrogant companies from the past ... Novell, IBM with the PC, Lotus, WordPerfect, ... and the list goes on and on! Where are they today and will iStock join the list?
-
This appears to be a workaround Istock implemented to discourage fraudulent buying. Of course, it also discourages legitimate buying. Here's another happy customer ::)
It's been a very frustrating 2 days for me. I finally figured out what the 404 error is for buying stock. They are allowing you to buy/download one photo every 5 minutes. I saved everything I needed to a lightbox and then sat at my computer for 3 hours to download the 40 pix I needed today. Download one, start timer, wait 5 minutes, download the next, start timer, wait 5 minutes. For 3 hours. If you try to download faster than one per 5 minutes, you get the 404 error. I stumbled upon the "workaround" by accident after pulling my hair out for 2 days.
-
This appears to be a workaround Istock implemented to discourage fraudulent buying. Of course, it also discourages legitimate buying. Here's another happy customer ::)
It's been a very frustrating 2 days for me. I finally figured out what the 404 error is for buying stock. They are allowing you to buy/download one photo every 5 minutes. I saved everything I needed to a lightbox and then sat at my computer for 3 hours to download the 40 pix I needed today. Download one, start timer, wait 5 minutes, download the next, start timer, wait 5 minutes. For 3 hours. If you try to download faster than one per 5 minutes, you get the 404 error. I stumbled upon the "workaround" by accident after pulling my hair out for 2 days.
Yep, this is called "Sales Prevention!"; Imagine how XMAS shopping would have been if you could only pay for a gift every 5 or 10 minutes! XMAS would have lasted a whole month!
-
oh this is another craziness---
from twitter:
@webconnoisseur tweets: FYI @istock & @istockhelp Your change password function generates a 404 error. Password changes correctly, but customers will be confused
Twitter: the new iStock support ticket method
-
What we are experiencing at iStock is incompetence and gross mismanagement. As CEO of a technology company, the Board would fire my as* in a heart beat if I ran the business and produced a website with the magnitude of problems and lack of testing and Q/C we are experiencing. On top of all the issues they close the shop and take a vacation. This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance. I don't see a long term future with iStock.
This is one of the things that frustrates me the most. Before going into the programming end of development, I spent a few years in QA as a tester and then managing the QA function. I see some of the stuff that gets rolled out here where basically it's the buyers and contributors testing it, and so obviously broken, that I'm just mind-boggled that it got put into production in that shape. It bugs me when people say "well those things will happen in all companies" -- not to this extent and repetition, and not without heads rolling. I'd have been let go in a heartbeat.
-
What we are experiencing at iStock is incompetence and gross mismanagement. As CEO of a technology company, the Board would fire my as* in a heart beat if I ran the business and produced a website with the magnitude of problems and lack of testing and Q/C we are experiencing. On top of all the issues they close the shop and take a vacation. This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance. I don't see a long term future with iStock.
This is one of the things that frustrates me the most. Before going into the programming end of development, I spent a few years in QA as a tester and then managing the QA function. I see some of the stuff that gets rolled out here where basically it's the buyers and contributors testing it, and so obviously broken, that I'm just mind-boggled that it got put into production in that shape. It bugs me when people say "well those things will happen in all companies" -- not to this extent and repetition, and not without heads rolling. I'd have been let go in a heartbeat.
Oh, who knows, he might be on a big golden goodbye deal like Fred the Shred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin)
The salient points are:
"Sir Frederick Anderson Goodwin CA, FCIBS, (born 17 August 1958) is a chartered accountant who was formerly chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS).
From 2000 until 2008 he presided over RBS's rapid rise to global prominence as the world's largest company (by assets - Ģ1.9 trillion),and fifth-largest bank by stock market value and its even more rapid fall as RBS was forced into effective nationalisation in 2008.
On October 11, 2008, Goodwin officially announced his resignation as Chief Executive and an early retirement, effective from January 31, 2009 - a month before RBS announced that its 2008 loss totalled Ģ24.1bn, the largest annual loss in UK corporate history. Following the February 2009 disclosure of his approximately Ģ700,000 per year pension award from RBS he was the subject of widespread public, political and media criticism."
and
"...Around this time he gained the moniker "Fred the Shred" from City financiers, reflecting a reputation for ruthlessly generating cost savings and efficiencies"
Basically Fred's in clover and doesn't GAF about the detritus (ordinary bank employees) left in his wake.
-
...This is either total incompetence or just plain arrogance...
I'd go with a little bit of both. Incompetence in that they don't properly QA test things before release, and arrogance in that they think that being the current top microstock company grants them permission to do whatever they like. Including taking a company-wide paid vacation just prior to cutting contributor royalty rates. Arrogance at it's best.
...I don't see a long term future with iStock...
Long-term, I agree. But when I say long-term, I'm thinking 10 years from now. istock is one of those companies that has enough staying power from their current loyal customer base. People will stick with istock through a lot, for many years, before we see any real impact from years of bad business practices. This latest fiasco is the perfect example. Look at the buyer mentioned earlier in this thread waiting 3 hours to download the images they needed. There are plenty of other places to buy images, many cheaper and just as good quality as istock's offerings. And yet buyers will still suffer through the problems and keep buying from istock after each and every misstep.
Buyer loyalty will keep istock afloat for a long time. Somewhere down the line, if they keep going in this direction, bad business practices will catch up with them. But it's not going to happen any time soon, not for many years I think.
-
A buyer who is downloading a significant number of files may already have a layout with proofs approved and thus have no choice but to be patient - either that or tear up the work, look for replacement images and go through the approval procedure again (while trying to explain why). In those circumstances, three hours of hassle would be less trouble than the alternative.
-
Look at the buyer mentioned earlier in this thread waiting 3 hours to download the images they needed. There are plenty of other places to buy images, many cheaper and just as good quality as istock's offerings. And yet buyers will still suffer through the problems and keep buying from istock after each and every misstep.
That buyer had already had the images in a lightbox approved by a client, so it wouldn't have been easy to start again looking for images and getting them approved. Maybe there was a deadline. But we don't know that s/he will be a loyal buyer when their image bundle needs renewed.
-
I have to say, in light of all that frustration, that buyer was exceedingly polite in their post. I don't know as I would have been. :D
-
I'm beginning to think iStock is the Enron of MicroStock. It starts with a massive money grab, then they jump ship right before it sinks and leave countless ruined victims in their wake. I have no idea how long it will take, or what the repercussions will be for the microstock industry as a whole.
-
Someone at IS sure has a sense of humor. The image displayed on their FB page just changed.
http://www.facebook.com/istock (http://www.facebook.com/istock)
Too funny!
-
The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.
-
The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.
that's what I thought, too.
-
The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.
that's what I thought, too.
Hmmm, I was remembering a red reversed IS camera logo there, like on Twitter. Did not notice the superman. Would have been a great icon if F5 had worked as hoped. Oh well, still funny.
-
I'm beginning to think iStock is the Enron of MicroStock. It starts with a massive money grab, then they jump ship right before it sinks and leave countless ruined victims in their wake.
Yup.
-
I'm beginning to think iStock is the Enron of MicroStock. It starts with a massive money grab, then they jump ship right before it sinks and leave countless ruined victims in their wake.
Yup.
You mean Yeppers!
-
The superman picture? That's been there for a couple of days at least.
that's what I thought, too.
Hmmm, I was remembering a red reversed IS camera logo there, like on Twitter. Did not notice the superman. Would have been a great icon if F5 had worked as hoped. Oh well, still funny.
But all things considered, don't you think he should be Bizarro Superman?
-
But all things considered, don't you think he should be Bizarro Superman?
ME NOT LIKE STUPID 404 ERROR! ME AM FIX WEB SITE! [SMASH!!!] [KABOOM!!!]
-
This appears to be a workaround Istock implemented to discourage fraudulent buying. Of course, it also discourages legitimate buying. Here's another happy customer ::)
It's been a very frustrating 2 days for me. I finally figured out what the 404 error is for buying stock. They are allowing you to buy/download one photo every 5 minutes. I saved everything I needed to a lightbox and then sat at my computer for 3 hours to download the 40 pix I needed today. Download one, start timer, wait 5 minutes, download the next, start timer, wait 5 minutes. For 3 hours. If you try to download faster than one per 5 minutes, you get the 404 error. I stumbled upon the "workaround" by accident after pulling my hair out for 2 days.
This makes me angry.
Did any of them actually think about what they were doing, or check any logs of legitimate transactions, to see whether buying two images in less than 5 minutes is actually an indicator of suspicious activity? Or did someone just throw this "fix" onto the server and then go back on xmas vacation? Did it ever to occur to anyone at IS that buying a lot of images isn't a sign of theft, but buying a ton of XXXL images is a possible sign of theft ... when ... wait for it ... IT'S A BRAND NEW CUSTOMER. Did they analyze any logs before they did this? Did they stand by checking the transaction logs, reading emails and answering the phone for a good 8-12 hours after they implemented this fix, to find out whether they had inadvertently killed their business? For example, doing a search in the logs for "customers who have been buying for more than 1 year who have been rejected more than twice because of the 5-minute rule." If they did not do any of those things then they need to shake up their management, pronto.
-
This makes me angry.
Did any of them actually think about what they were doing...
I assume this was a rhetorical question - you know the answer. And as I posted in the other thread (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/751/) and you did above, there are many perfectly serviceable algorithms one could use to limit the purchases that are high risk without burdening masses of legitimate buyers with this idiotic 5 minute rule.
We all make the occasional mistake, but the sustained thoughtlessness demonstrated by the software team at IS is just inexcusable. Going away for a long break and leaving your breakage to get in customers' way is just the icing on the cake.
-
Did any of them actually think about what they were doing, or check any logs of legitimate transactions, to see whether buying two images in less than 5 minutes is actually an indicator of suspicious activity?
At the speed at which the transactions were occurring, this was a pretty obvious indicator. And it wasn't the first attempt to slow things down - this didn't happen until Sun or Mon, iirc.
-
The strategy may have worked, if the problem has moved over to Bigstock - as seems to be the case. Is there an endless supply of stolen credit card details? Perhaps Wikileaks has just released the Visa database?
-
Watching iStock is like watching a car crash in slow motion. Bits are breaking off and going in all directions. The driver is smiling confidently and assuring his passengers that all is well, and the mechanics are working on it!
-
Perhaps Wikileaks has just released the Visa database?
lol
-
- F5 fiasco
- Logo program fiasco
- Agency collection start fiasco
- Business card eternal fiasco
- EL percentage reduction fiasco
- Agency search fiasco
- Magical mystery changing vector prices fiasco
- A old and good live stats fiasco
- Partner Program fiasco. Once you're in you will never get out.
- Support tickets long times to response fiasco.
- Search engine Agency pics fiasco.
- Vector dudes are second rate contributors now fiasco.
- XXXL size removals fiasco.
- Fixes Released Nov 24 fiasco
- Stockys fiasco
- Vetta sale prices for of December with RC bonus. Again, nothing for illustrators.
- New faceted search start fiasco.
Another one for the list ... the "Newly Approved Files and Recent Sales Not Showing Up Fiasco".
I say 'newly approved' and 'recent sales' but it's more like two weeks now. Because the sales aren't showing either it means that newish images which are actually showing are not getting the best match boost their early sales deserve. I've got images uploaded from 17th Dec that were approved ages ago but are still not showing. Pathetic. Is this the service that we are paying up to 85% commission for?
In contrast images that I uploaded to SS yesterday are already available to the search and are selling.
-
Another one for the list ... the "Newly Approved Files and Recent Sales Not Showing Up Fiasco".
I say 'newly approved' and 'recent sales' but it's more like two weeks now. Because the sales aren't showing either it means that newish images which are actually showing are not getting the best match boost their early sales deserve. I've got images uploaded from 17th Dec that were approved ages ago but are still not showing. Pathetic. Is this the service that we are paying up to 85% commission for?
In contrast images that I uploaded to SS yesterday are already available to the search and are selling.
Sales not showing? You mean, someone might have recent sales but they haven't shown up in either the DLs column or in the $ balance?
My files uploaded/approved around the middle of December did start showing up in the search/lightbox after a week or so and I had sales right up to and including Xmas day and for a couple of days afterwards, but there have been zero sales reported for the last 5 days.
-
Sales not showing? You mean, someone might have recent sales but they haven't shown up in either the DLs column or in the $ balance?
My files uploaded/approved around the middle of December did start showing up in the search/lightbox after a week or so and I had sales right up to and including Xmas day and for a couple of days afterwards, but there have been zero sales reported for the last 5 days.
No. Sales are showing in the 'My Uploads' column and the $ Balance. However they are not yet being registered on the Image itself for the purpose of it counting towards best match placement, etc.
For example I've got relatively new images that have had sales from a few days ago but if you were to click on them (as a buyer say) then it would still indicate 0 sales.
-
I have to say, in light of all that frustration, that buyer was exceedingly polite in their post. I don't know as I would have been.
No kidding, there's a surprise.
-
More epic failures.
Failure to update the royalty pages with the new 2011 structure.
Failure to even inform people if their royalty percentage has changed, despite the fact that they said it would be rolled out on 1/1/11.
They must still be on vacation.
-
More epic failures.
Failure to update the royalty pages with the new 2011 structure.
Failure to even inform people if their royalty percentage has changed, despite the fact that they said it would be rolled out on 1/1/11.
They must still be on vacation.
Absolutely. There should have been some sort of announcement by now. For most of us, Jan 3 was the day we got back to work (if we were off in the first place). Admin is still almost totally mum on the IS forums.
Personally, I don't think they are vacationing anymore or baking cookies, but trying to dig themselves out of the deep hole their extended vacation created in the first place.
-
More epic failures.
Failure to update the royalty pages with the new 2011 structure.
Failure to even inform people if their royalty percentage has changed, despite the fact that they said it would be rolled out on 1/1/11.
They must still be on vacation.
Absolutely. There should have been some sort of announcement by now. For most of us, Jan 3 was the day we got back to work (if we were off in the first place). Admin is still almost totally mum on the IS forums.
Personally, I don't think they are vacationing anymore or baking cookies, but trying to dig themselves out of the deep hole their extended vacation created in the first place.
couldn't agree more. This is crazy or scarey - can't decide which! You'd think they would know by now to come in and at least say "we understand you want to know the RC and all that bs.. but we're working on it" -- yeah, yeah, eventhough people give them crap for saying "we're working on it" .. to me that is better than complete silence.
or maybe KKThompson made another "what you really meant to say was how much you love iStock..." post and had the foresight this time to have someone review it so now it's getting some surgery done on it by the "istock spin doctor." :)
-
More epic failures.
Failure to update the royalty pages with the new 2011 structure.
Failure to even inform people if their royalty percentage has changed, despite the fact that they said it would be rolled out on 1/1/11.
They must still be on vacation.
seriously, this is crazy. I work on several different websites and when I have a client send me content they don't want to show up for another week or they want removed after a certain date, I simple set that in the code on the backend. Half my clients think I'm so on the ball with getting this done on time, it's great - but many know that it is all programmed. I cannot for the life of me believe that this was not pre-coded to go into effect at midnight on 1/1/11. It just is weird.
I'm not going to complain if it means I get to keep the commissions earned, but it really points to another fact where iStock has not kept their word. again.
heavy sigh.
-
I'm not going to complain if it means I get to keep the commissions earned,
Except they'll probably make it retroactive and delete the incorrect amounts from your account. Don't request a payout until you know for sure or you'll end up owing them money!
-
pls correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that I have received a single email update from IS over the last few weeks with any kind of useful or reassuring email about the credit card fraud, the commission changes, price changes, or any other substantive business issue. I'm basically aware of what's going on because of checking forums (especially this one) but it seems odd to me that a company wouldn't put a bit more effort into letting their contributors know what's going on. Why bother to ever send out any newsletters or other communications by email if you don't bother to do it when really important stuff is happening?
There were some rumors and speculation of a sale of this company ... it did remind me of an experience I had a decade or so ago. I was working for a company in another field. It was rumored that the company was for sale, in fact it was eventually acknowledged that a buyer had to be found. Management however gave everyone the impression that this would not happen for some time, that there was a great deal of shopping around for buyers to be done, and that don't worry we're going to take our time and do this right. We found out much later that this was all a pile of B.S. The takeover deal was already signed and sealed in secret - at around the same moment that they pretended that the search for a buyer was just beginning. Their hints about looking at multiple possible buyers, there being a bidding war, etc. were all lies. There was only ever one buyer, there was never any other bid, and it was locked up almost before anyone even knew there would even be a sale. When we - the grunts and ordinary shareholders - learned all of these secrets a year or more later, after the most gut-wrenching chaos that we had ever experienced on the job, it suddenly explained a LOT of what we had seen. Like bizarre decisions, actions and statements by management that made no sense given that they were supposedly conducting business as normal while they were calmly looking for a partner for a takeover or merger. All I'm saying is, if the rumors of a sale of IS/Getty are true then it's possible it's already been signed and that management is basically just running out the clock trying to keep a lid on things and put out fires but not really taking action with a view to long-term plans (such as shaking up the IT department) because they're probably not going to be in a position to finish any such plans.
If you're still with me then I'll share any another brief nugget of advice that my elderly uncle gave me when I was just a young pup starting out in the corporate world and he was a grizzled veteran of 40 years of corporate shenanigans. He said, "Look, at some point in your career your company is going to be sold. They're going to reassure everyone that, don't worry, nothing is going to change, only the sign on the outside will be different and everything else will be left alone. That is always a lie." Based on my limited experience, he was correct.
-
Excellent post Chia! I don't know if you are right that the sale has already gone through (or is in the process of going through at the moment) but the situation you describe certainly fits what we are seeing.
Whatever the reason, it's pretty lousy of them to keep their suppliers in the dark wondering whattheF is going on.
-
<snip>
All I'm saying is, if the rumors of a sale of IS/Getty are true then it's possible it's already been signed and that management is basically just running out the clock trying to keep a lid on things and put out fires but not really taking action with a view to long-term plans (such as shaking up the IT department) because they're probably not going to be in a position to finish any such plans.
<snip>
I think you are probably right. And yes, there were no emails to tell us anything about the big fraud - and when asked "why not send an email message?" the response from iStock was "our email database is too big for that" or something to that effect. I guess it's not too big for announcing a Vetta sale, but to inform contributors about potential issues is just too much work for them.
-
Excellent post Chia! I don't know if you are right that the sale has already gone through (or is in the process of going through at the moment) but the situation you describe certainly fits what we are seeing.
Whatever the reason, it's pretty lousy of them to keep their suppliers in the dark wondering whattheF is going on.
Employees, or in this case contributors, would never know what the eff was going on. That's just how they do it. You are right, makes perfect sense.
Same when an employer goes bankrupt. The employees start getting little signs like the bottled water machine disappears. Then someone in payroll gives you an "anonymous" heads up that you should go to the bank on your lunch break. Next thing you know, you show up for work but can't get in the building because the doors are locked and a big sign says "closed for rent non-payment" or such. This all has happened to me personally. Wouldn't you think if they would have given the employees a heads up, everyone could have looked for jobs and not been unexpectedly unemployed? No, they only watch out for themselves. It is in their interest to not say a word.
-
They are acting like there may be a sale in the future, but Getty never splits and sells anything do they? They buy sites just to eliminate the competition. Maybe the entire company is for sale or perhaps they are working on a cash injection from Goldman Sachs. Maybe this programming fisaso is because they've laid off the senior staff who actually knew how to program because they had to get their payroll down. Does anyone know if the staff has been reduced?
-
I have been deactivating low sellers over the past couple of months. Photos that I deactivated more than 3 weeks ago still show in my portfolio. Fortunately, when you click on them it says they are deactivated, but they used to be purged from my portfolio in a couple of days.
I sent an email to support asking how long it took to have those purged and my response was that it takes 48 hours. I don't even think they read my email. If it takes 48 hours, why are they still there after 3 weeks?
I'm thinking it's just a canned email they sent off.
-
There seems to be an increase in deleting comments that are critical of them today. Wonder if that is their New Year's resolution. Only Woo-Yaying allowed.
-
There seems to be an increase in deleting comments that are critical to them today. Wonder if that is their New Year's resolution. Only Woo-Yaying allowed.
If Pet Chia's theory is right, then perhaps they want to make sure the new (or potential) owners don't get an idea of how messed up the site is...
-
There seems to be an increase in deleting comments that are critical to them today. Wonder if that is their New Year's resolution. Only Woo-Yaying allowed.
If Pet Chia's theory is right, then perhaps they want to make sure the new (or potential) owners don't get an idea of how messed up the site is...
Just from several of the various exclusives who seem to be "sent" over here to counteract the truth whenever there is a big blowup, I gleaned that bringing a lot of negative attention to the screwups must be having a ton of adverse effect, and therefore only wooyaying will be allowed.
-
^^^
Not really a surprise, this.
I am somewhat astonished that they let it go on for as long as they did.
-
There seems to be an increase in deleting comments that are critical of them today. Wonder if that is their New Year's resolution. Only Woo-Yaying allowed.
How can you tell when stuff is deleted? Or is it just that you read a post and then when you went back it was missing?
I was just over there now and there are a lot of negative posts in almost every thread with only an occasional wooyay. People are really pissed, never seen anything like it. My fav was the "mad as hell" post that got locked by Lobo without a snarky comment (surprising). I would link it but I am a tencho-boob on an iPad and don't know how to post a lonk.
Edit: or apparently know how to spell either, meant link not lonk. ;D
-
There seems to be an increase in deleting comments that are critical of them today. Wonder if that is their New Year's resolution. Only Woo-Yaying allowed.
How can you tell when stuff is deleted? Or is it just that you read a post and then when you went back it was missing?
Yes.
-
^ i guess that was kinda a stoopid question. I miss all the good stuff since I can't read the forum pages at work (I don't think my boss would appreciate it). BTW Caspixel, are you still banned?
-
^ i guess that was kinda a stoopid question. I miss all the good stuff since I can't read the forum pages at work (I don't think my boss would appreciate it). BTW Caspixel, are you still banned?
Yup. Still banned. I'm certain it's for life. :D
-
^ i guess that was kinda a stoopid question. I miss all the good stuff since I can't read the forum pages at work (I don't think my boss would appreciate it). BTW Caspixel, are you still banned?
Yup. Still banned. I'm certain it's for life. :D
I can have a friend start an account and we'd sell it to you so you can get the latest emails from iStock and read the forums? ;D
How can the mail database be too large? They write to me once a week with some announcement or another. They are already writing to all of us on a regular basis?
-
How can the mail database be too large? They write to me once a week with some announcement or another. They are already writing to all of us on a regular basis?
[/quote]
Well, if you are going to start using logic ...
-
^ i guess that was kinda a stoopid question. I miss all the good stuff since I can't read the forum pages at work (I don't think my boss would appreciate it). BTW Caspixel, are you still banned?
Yup. Still banned. I'm certain it's for life. :D
I can have a friend start an account and we'd sell it to you so you can get the latest emails from iStock and read the forums? ;D
LOL. Well, I can read the forums fine. I just can't post. And I certainly wouldn't want to pay for such a "privilege". :D
I still have an account there too. And can even post on my blog.
-
There seems to be an increase in deleting comments that are critical of them today.
If that were really the case there would be no posts left. I have seen no posts deleted.
and therefore only wooyaying will be allowed.
Wha? Where is there any 'woo-yaying' in the forums at the moment?
Yup. Still banned. I'm certain it's for life.
What a shame, your cheery negativity is sooo missed.
-
There seems to be an increase in deleting comments that are critical of them today.
If that were really the case there would be no posts left. I have seen no posts deleted.
I had one of mine deleted yesterday. No swearing, no personal attacks, just some comments about what the priorities should be (and that hoopla over the 8 millionth file should be nowhere on the list until search was working).
-
Fairy nuff. I reluctantly stand corrected.
-
chia_pet and others,
You're right, this is how things get when a sale or shutdown is in the works, and I also speak from experience. It gets pretty weird, things just sort of go dark and nothing happens. That's because no one can get a decision on anything from the higher-ups. The company is divided into 2 groups - those above a certain level, who know what's happening, and those below that don't - and those groups stop talking to each other. Managers sit in offices with closed doors, workers hang around in small groups and chat.
Employees realize there's no point in thinking about the future until they find out what it's going to be, so they stop doing anything beyond what's necessary to get through the day.
No idea what's really happening at IS but it sort of fits the pattern.
-
chia_pet and others,
You're right, this is how things get when a sale or shutdown is in the works, and I also speak from experience. It gets pretty weird, things just sort of go dark and nothing happens. That's because no one can get a decision on anything from the higher-ups. The company is divided into 2 groups - those above a certain level, who know what's happening, and those below that don't - and those groups stop talking to each other. Managers sit in offices with closed doors, workers hang around in small groups and chat.
Employees realize there's no point in thinking about the future until they find out what it's going to be, so they stop doing anything beyond what's necessary to get through the day.
No idea what's really happening at IS but it sort of fits the pattern.
I would agree. It seems as though that is what is happening. But whether it is or isn't, I still can't fathom that they would let things get as bad as they have. Why not just postpone F5 instead of doing it half-a*sed and ruining goodwill with both buyers and contributors. I sure can't figure it out.
-
Stockastic... it's been a long time since I was in a company where this happened, and I'd forgotten quite how it felt. Reading your post brought it all back. It was exactly like that. Spot on.
-
Stockastic... it's been a long time since I was in a company where this happened, and I'd forgotten quite how it felt. Reading your post brought it all back. It was exactly like that. Spot on.
Me too! Great post Stockastic.
-
I still can't fathom that they would let things get as bad as they have.
I've been with IS a number of years and each year has been marked by at least one major IT disaster. There was one Fall I particularly remember when the site crashed, constantly, for weeks. They have a record of IT mismanagement going back years, this is nothing particularly new. It is very frustrating, particularly in the light of all the recent PR disasters such as the received credits change. You'd think they'd try and be on the ball a bit more, or maybe they just don't care. With all the money they make, they could pay the best to sort out the site once and for all.
-
I still can't fathom that they would let things get as bad as they have.
I've been with IS a number of years and each year has been marked by at least one major IT disaster. There was one Fall I particularly remember when the site crashed, constantly, for weeks. They have a record of IT mismanagement going back years, this is nothing particularly new. It is very frustrating, particularly in the light of all the recent PR disasters such as the received credits change. You'd think they'd try and be on the ball a bit more, or maybe they just don't care. With all the money they make, they could pay the best to sort out the site once and for all.
In the 7 years I've been with iStock, this seems to be worse as it has lasted quite long and seems as they try to fix one thing they break three others in the process.
-
In the 7 years I've been with iStock, this seems to be worse as it has lasted quite long and seems as they try to fix one thing they break three others in the process.
Tell me about it. Sales at Istock have been bizarrely dead for me over the last few days too. I know we're barely 5 days into the month but my sales are running at about half what they were over the same period last January. At just 19% of my total they've also slipped into 3rd place in my earnings league. Bewildering.
-
Yes, I had been hesitant to mention it because of the usual "it's too early to tell" comments, but my sales there are in the toilet as well. It can't be a coincidence that the site is so messed up and sales are down, can it? Unlikely.
-
Yes, I had been hesitant to mention it because of the usual "it's too early to tell" comments, but my sales there are in the toilet as well. It can't be a coincidence that the site is so messed up and sales are down, can it? Unlikely.
well I'm sure that has something to do with lower sales.. but as you both pointed out, it's also early -- though things should start to pick up this week as people get back to work after holidays. Today has been a rather decent sale day for me at iStock, first one in several weeks so it could just be an anomaly.
It will be interesting to see how this month goes at iStock and if the fixes happen without breaking anything new.
and FWIW, SS has gone wild on me for downloads lately, too. I'm smiling at that one and wondering if it's also just a fluke or if a chunk of fed-up iStock buyers are looking at other places to shop.
-
Seriously, I wish IS would just land the friggin' plane! Get the site fixed, get on with their rape and pillaging and let us see what the heck is left so I can determine if I even want to play anymore...
-
OK, I guess the magic '5' works. Try to press F5, still no sales... F5, F5, still nothing about royalties... 5th? Maybe today is The Day! Waiting for the News then!
.
.
.
knock, knock... anybody @ IS? From IS? Wake up guys, I know you read it!
-
It will be interesting to see how this month goes at iStock and if the fixes happen without breaking anything new.
and FWIW, SS has gone wild on me for downloads lately, too. I'm smiling at that one and wondering if it's also just a fluke or if a chunk of fed-up iStock buyers are looking at other places to shop.
Yep __ excellent sales at Shutterstock and average at FT, DT and BigStock. Maybe all Istock's customers went on extended vaccation with the staff and haven't got back yet?
-
Yes, I had been hesitant to mention it because of the usual "it's too early to tell" comments, but my sales there are in the toilet as well. It can't be a coincidence that the site is so messed up and sales are down, can it? Unlikely.
and FWIW, SS has gone wild on me for downloads lately, too. I'm smiling at that one and wondering if it's also just a fluke or if a chunk of fed-up iStock buyers are looking at other places to shop.
FWIW I am an illustrator and have nowhere near the size port of you but my first three months on SS were tremendous, since then it has been less so. But I have not been uploading regularly since I have started to work full time. IMO SS is a beast you need to constantly feed. I think subscribers go through the new uploads everyday and download new stuff at will to try and get their money's worth and download 25 a day.
-
I was despairing of IS customers ever coming back to the site, then I had possibly my BDE today ... about 5 days of downloads at once. Looks like the customers finally got over their hangovers.
-
I was despairing of IS customers ever coming back to the site, then I had possibly my BDE today ... about 5 days of downloads at once. Looks like the customers finally got over their hangovers.
Good on you!
My month is still Cr@p thus far.
-
chia_pet and others,
You're right, this is how things get when a sale or shutdown is in the works, and I also speak from experience. It gets pretty weird, things just sort of go dark and nothing happens. That's because no one can get a decision on anything from the higher-ups. The company is divided into 2 groups - those above a certain level, who know what's happening, and those below that don't - and those groups stop talking to each other. Managers sit in offices with closed doors, workers hang around in small groups and chat.
Employees realize there's no point in thinking about the future until they find out what it's going to be, so they stop doing anything beyond what's necessary to get through the day.
No idea what's really happening at IS but it sort of fits the pattern.
I would agree. It seems as though that is what is happening. But whether it is or isn't, I still can't fathom that they would let things get as bad as they have. Why not just postpone F5 instead of doing it half-a*sed and ruining goodwill with both buyers and contributors. I sure can't figure it out.
--------------------
Been wondering about why not postpone/stop the F5 myself and think one possibility is that bonuses for individual Istock employees might have been tied to say rolling out certain parts of the F5 before the end of 2010. Seems stupid to me that this could be the truth, but I've seen it done elsewhere.
-
Yes, I had been hesitant to mention it because of the usual "it's too early to tell" comments, but my sales there are in the toilet as well. It can't be a coincidence that the site is so messed up and sales are down, can it? Unlikely.
Odd. I'm about 10% up on last year at iS over the first five days. DT has suddenly sprung to life (best match change?) and SS is well up if I ignore an EL from last year. Fotolia is down 20% and BS is double (unless there is fraud hidden in it, but it's not much, anyway). I do think it is still too close to the holiday to draw firm conclusions.
-
I think the company being sold is actually the most plausible explanation and scenario I can imagine if you apply that thinking to as to how such a huge and valuable company could be left to start to fall apart by it's admins at such a very critical time when large online changes are supposed to be kicking in.
If the company has been in a state of for-sale limbo for some time now, and that a lot of people physically left at the end of the year, then issues and problems could be left to dangle unresolved until the new owners and admins are in place in a couple of months from now.
It would explain all the silence from HQ and very little proactive action on all the recent site problems an errors as well.
The XMAS image theft CC fraud debacle could also have been internally masterminded and driven by other disgruntled employees who were laid off at the end of the year. I would say the chances are very high of any or all of this being true and it is the only plausible explanation as to why the site is just being left to fall apart as it has.
It would also explain why they pushed out new packages like F5 before the end of the year which weren't bug tested first. And who would launch a new search engine during a holiday season, which is bad timing anyway since nobody would be around or could be bothered to stick around to fix it, unless people were under deadlines to finish certain things before leaving? People probably had put in resignations back in September when the new royalty structure was announced, but promised to at least complete certain projects before they leave at the end of the year, whether the new systems are actually ready for prime time or not. Welcome to iFlop 2011 :)
-
This is all very depressing. Cheer up, here is a little reminder of how naive stock and its cliches really are if you look at it with bit more intellect and education than what, lets say, a flea has : )
http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/ (http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/)
-
[url]http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/[/url] ([url]http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/[/url])
:D :D :D
Thanks for that... I nearly fell off my chair laughing at just how incredibly joyful those salads apparently are!
-
I think the company being sold is actually the most plausible explanation and scenario I can imagine
iStock has always had poor management and a history of IT disasters going back years. This is nothing new.
-
^
It may be nothing new, but these are the most snafus, so close together that I have seen since 2005 when I joined. It really does have the feel of a sinking ship.
-
^
It may be nothing new, but these are the most snafus, so close together that I have seen since 2005 when I joined. It really does have the feel of a sinking ship.
^^ Yes, exactly. Too many all at one time, lasting way too long, and practically no communication from HQ.
-
Why does Lobo have to lock every single thread with a snarky comment? Why not a "We are very concerned with protecting our contributors IP rights. Thanks for noticing, we are looking into it."?
Oh, wait, that's because they don't give a crap about you and your IP rights (and it shines through time and again).
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062)
-
I just got the Contact Sheet. Not a mention of any of the site problems nor any word on when those (apparently nonexistent) problems would be fixed.
-
I just got the Contact Sheet. Not a mention of any of the site problems nor any word on when those (apparently nonexistent) problems would be fixed.
I am shocked, I say. Shocked!
-
Why does Lobo have to lock every single thread with a snarky comment?
It's his sitz im leben, raison d'etre and sine qua non.
-
Why does Lobo have to lock every single thread with a snarky comment? Why not a "We are very concerned with protecting our contributors IP rights. Thanks for noticing, we are looking into it."?
Oh, wait, that's because they don't give a crap about you and your IP rights (and it shines through time and again).
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url])
I understand how not posting a link is a good idea, and I understand that tons of traffic sent to the site might tip the thieves off, but...
a. ce at IS isn't going to do a * thing about any of it, except maybe the Vetta file and b. I'm not sure the thieves give a cr*p. Chances are they are out of country and untouchable.
-
Is it just me or have they accidentally killed Istockphoto? My sales there are unbelievably terrible this week. It can't be the season because everywhere else is normal to very good.
My January so far - SS 39%, FT 26%, IS ... wait for it ... 21%, DT 12%.
Last January Istock were at 36%. When they finally get around to salami-slicing the commissions even further they'll be virtually nothing left.
-
Today's slow, but Wed & Thu were very nice (for January), especially given how much of the site is busted. They did push some search fixes yesterday, so perhaps that's why sales today are slow :)
-
Today's slow, but Wed & Thu were very nice (for January), especially given how much of the site is busted. They did push some search fixes yesterday, so perhaps that's why sales today are slow :)
-------------------
Maybe they tweaked best match to futher disfavor independents? As a new independent, my sales suck and I would guess are worse then they were this time last year.
-
As a new independent, my sales suck and I would guess are worse then they were this time last year.
You don't need to guess: it's easy to check! (in Stats)
-
They did push some search fixes yesterday, so perhaps that's why sales today are slow :)
It's fixed?!
I just did a search, clicked on one of the images, hit the back button, and all the thums were missing except for an apparently random one.
Three F5s made no difference. The Search Results showed as (4), although the real result was 283.
This however isn't consistently replicable, as doing the same again (inputting a search term, clicking on one image, hitting the back button) shows all the thums as it should be.
-
Today's slow, but Wed & Thu were very nice (for January), especially given how much of the site is busted. They did push some search fixes yesterday, so perhaps that's why sales today are slow :)
-------------------
Maybe they tweaked best match to futher disfavor independents? As a new independent, my sales suck and I would guess are worse then they were this time last year.
as a new independent myself (since Oct), my sales this week have not been too bad actually. I think it's Ebb, Flow and the Bugs. (sounds like a great name for a band! haha)
-
They did push some search fixes yesterday, so perhaps that's why sales today are slow :)
It's fixed?!
I just did a search, clicked on one of the images, hit the back button, and all the thums were missing except for an apparently random one.
Three F5s made no difference. The Search Results showed as (4), although the real result was 283.
This however isn't consistently replicable, as doing the same again (inputting a search term, clicking on one image, hitting the back button) shows all the thums as it should be.
"I'm sure it's your browser, try a different one." That seems to be one of the canned responses.
-
They did push some search fixes yesterday, so perhaps that's why sales today are slow :)
It's fixed?!
I just did a search, clicked on one of the images, hit the back button, and all the thums were missing except for an apparently random one.
Three F5s made no difference. The Search Results showed as (4), although the real result was 283.
This however isn't consistently replicable, as doing the same again (inputting a search term, clicking on one image, hitting the back button) shows all the thums as it should be.
Search isn't fully fixed, but they did fix a few problems. The one with multiple search terms where one term had only one meaning causing all other terms to have only their default meaning (often giving no results as in horse leg). Another one brought up by a contributor with a rotting bird picture that didn't show (and one where removing illustrations from the results caused the number of search results to increase!).
They have plenty more to to work on though :)
-
I think it's Ebb, Flow and the Bugs. (sounds like a great name for a band! haha)
:D :D :D
Copyright it, now! :D
-
It's fixed?!
I just did a search, clicked on one of the images, hit the back button, and all the thums were missing except for an apparently random one.
Three F5s made no difference. The Search Results showed as (4), although the real result was 283.
This however isn't consistently replicable, as doing the same again (inputting a search term, clicking on one image, hitting the back button) shows all the thums as it should be.
I've been having that issue, not even doing a search. If I go to say page 12 of my portfolio, click on an image, then either click the back button, or use the Back to Results button in the website, I get no thumbs.
And no, I'm not going to use a different browser. But I will use a different site! ;)
-
I think it's Ebb, Flow and the Bugs. (sounds like a great name for a band! haha)
:D :D :D
Copyright it, now! :D
iStock probably already owns it! :)
-
Today's slow, but Wed & Thu were very nice (for January), especially given how much of the site is busted. They did push some search fixes yesterday, so perhaps that's why sales today are slow :)
Were you just being funny or do you really think fixing the SE was reducing sales in some way on Friday?
-
I was trying to be deeply sarcastic about the poor quality of their software - that their fixes often weren't and contained more bugs to boot. If it wasn't that, perhaps it was that it's the Orthodox/Coptic Christmas Day today.
I do think that the many search bugs have affected sales, even though this is typically a fairly slow time of the year.
-
I was trying to be deeply sarcastic about the poor quality of their software - that their fixes often weren't and contained more bugs to boot. If it wasn't that, perhaps it was that it's the Orthodox/Coptic Christmas Day today.
I do think that the many search bugs have affected sales, even though this is typically a fairly slow time of the year.
Sorry, I took it a bit seriously I guess since my sales dropped on Friday to 1/5th of what they were on Thursday and I often don't see such big swings from day to day on the weekdays.
Interestingly enough, the sales I did have were files that rarely sell. So maybe there was some correlation to the search changes.
On the other hand, a friend had one his best days this week on Friday. So go figure. Maybe it has something to do with that rock band Ebs Flows & Bugs :)
As for the time of year issue, would it be safe to say that things normally start getting back on track by the second week in Jan?
-
My sales have been great this week. Pleasantly surprised given the site and search issues.
-
As for the time of year issue, would it be safe to say that things normally start getting back on track by the second week in Jan?
Yes. Monday should see everyone back at work and the hangovers/party spirit consigned to the dustbin of history.
-
As for the time of year issue, would it be safe to say that things normally start getting back on track by the second week in Jan?
Yes. Monday should see everyone back at work and the hangovers/party spirit consigned to the dustbin of history.
lol. exactly.
-
Yes. Monday should see everyone back at work and the hangovers/party spirit consigned to the dustbin of history.
Nope. Didn't happen.
It is now nearly 24 hours since RM assured us that they'd be running a 'manual update' to release all the newly-approved images into our portfolios and the search ... but still nothing. If they can't even manually override the system (that they designed) how long is it going to take them to provide a permanent fix?
-
oh look, another epic fail. Even people that want to buy something at istock can't seem to get in the door:
from this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290922&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290922&page=1)
I refered a buyer to istock. They told me when they hit the sign up button it said something to the effect of "we are experiencing a high volume of new sign ups please try again later". Unfortunately they are not going to try again later they just went to another site and found the image there. Is this a known issue? Buyers signing up seems kinda like a priority.
(Edited on 2011-01-10 21:44:24 by LightScribe)
seriously, they really need to get someone in there that can handle this fraud crap without affecting the real buyers.
-
Oh dear Lord.
I am glad they are dealing with the fraud. I really am. Surely there should be some way to do that without preventing all new buyers from joining?
I have never been more grateful to be non-exclusive.
-
Oh dear Lord.
I am glad they are dealing with the fraud. I really am. Surely there should be some way to do that without preventing all new buyers from joining?
I have never been more grateful to be non-exclusive.
They might be dealing with it -- but new posts says it's happening again, targeting "family related".
-
They might be dealing with it -- but new posts says it's happening again, targeting "family related".
Oh crap. Well that explains the XXL sales I have gotten today. Guess this isn't going to really stop until the carcass of Istock has been picked clean. Once they have everything in the library, the theft will stop. >:(
-
oh look, another epic fail. Even people that want to buy something at istock can't seem to get in the door:
from this thread:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290922&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=290922&page=1[/url])
I refered a buyer to istock. They told me when they hit the sign up button it said something to the effect of "we are experiencing a high volume of new sign ups please try again later". Unfortunately they are not going to try again later they just went to another site and found the image there. Is this a known issue? Buyers signing up seems kinda like a priority.
(Edited on 2011-01-10 21:44:24 by LightScribe)
seriously, they really need to get someone in there that can handle this fraud crap without affecting the real buyers.
That's some brilliant fraud prevention there. :D
-
Oh dear Lord.
I am glad they are dealing with the fraud. I really am. Surely there should be some way to do that without preventing all new buyers from joining?
I have never been more grateful to be non-exclusive.
Yes, instead of prevent new buyers from joining, why don't they allow the purchases, just delay the downloads until the cc info can be manually checked?
And I agree, totally grateful to be non-exclusive.
-
Just got my Contact Sheet. As usual, all sunshine and roses and nothing about any problems being addressed. No surprise there.
What did surprise me was when I clicked on the "seasonal search" link for valentines images and it preselects only illustrations! I have never had illos only checked in my life. So I unchecked it and the rest of the images came up. Then I closed the window and went back and clicked the link in Contact Sheet again. Guess what. Illustrations only was checked again.
Well, at least they have finally done something for the illustrators but basically another SNAFU. ::)
Oh, and as an added bonus, when you uncheck illustrations and see the photos too, you will notice that many of the Vetta and Agency images gracing the first page are couples that have nothing at all to do with Valentine's day.
Are we supposed to be adding "valentine's day" to all of our images of couples??
-
Are we supposed to be adding "valentine's day" to all of our images of couples??
Except for the ones where they're assaulting each other, yeah.
-
Are we supposed to be adding "valentine's day" to all of our images of couples??
Only if you want the to be Vetta.
-
Why does Lobo have to lock every single thread with a snarky comment? Why not a "We are very concerned with protecting our contributors IP rights. Thanks for noticing, we are looking into it."?
Oh, wait, that's because they don't give a crap about you and your IP rights (and it shines through time and again).
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url])
I don't think it is that snarky. It gives the required information. And it is likely a canned response using a macro. As in lock this thread and a moderator selects a canned response from a list.
-
Why does Lobo have to lock every single thread with a snarky comment? Why not a "We are very concerned with protecting our contributors IP rights. Thanks for noticing, we are looking into it."?
Oh, wait, that's because they don't give a crap about you and your IP rights (and it shines through time and again).
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url])
I don't think it is that snarky. It gives the required information. And it is likely a canned response using a macro. As in lock this thread and a moderator selects a canned response from a list.
If it's a canned response, it must be something that was just instituted because his remarks in the past have been downright rude, snarky and arrogant.
-
Now we have contributors writing code to fix problems and giving the solution to the IS programmers - they should be asking how many RC's they get for uploading working fixes to the f5 failed code.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1)
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1)
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
-
Now we have contributors writing code to fix problems and giving the solution to the IS programmers - they should be asking how many RC's they get for uploading working fixes to the f5 failed code.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291522&page=1[/url])
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
Unfreakingbelievable!
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url])
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
Fired?
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url])
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
Maybe he's on holiday? I see he's still up there and still has his moderator badge.
Fired?
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url])
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
Maybe he's on holiday? I see he's still up there and still has his moderator badge.
Fired?
Maybe they moved him over to head up the IT dept. ;)
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url])
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
Yeah, I just noticed they made Kelvin a moderator. Too bad.
Although he was always a vocal and clever critic of IS policy when necessary, I had noticed that recently his posts were very much towing the company line. Now his complete 180 in the forums makes sense.
Very clever of Istock. Silence one of your most effective critics by putting him on the payroll.
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url])
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
Yeah, I just noticed they made Kelvin a moderator. Too bad.
Although he was always a vocal and clever critic of IS policy when necessary, I had noticed that recently his posts were very much towing the company line. Now his complete 180 in the forums makes sense.
Very clever of Istock. Silence one of your most effective critics by putting him on the payroll.
Yep. Another sellout. At least he is locking threads tactfully, even though they are still getting locked.
I totally expect sjlocke to be next. :-\
-
[double post, sorry]
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url])
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
Yeah, I just noticed they made Kelvin a moderator. Too bad.
Although he was always a vocal and clever critic of IS policy when necessary, I had noticed that recently his posts were very much towing the company line. Now his complete 180 in the forums makes sense.
Very clever of Istock. Silence one of your most effective critics by putting him on the payroll.
Yep. Another sellout. At least he is locking threads tactfully, even though they are still getting locked.
I totally expect sjlocke to be next. :-\
I don't think Sean can be easily bought silenced. It would have been really easy for him to stay off the iStock forums and here: most of the other top hitters are 'invisible', and he hasn't so far.
I can't imagine he hasn't been asked to be an inspector at the very least.
-
Yep. Another sellout. At least he is locking threads tactfully, even though they are still getting locked.
I totally expect sjlocke to be next. :-\
I don't think Sean can be easily bought silenced. It would have been really easy for him to stay off the iStock forums and here: most of the other top hitters are 'invisible', and he hasn't so far.
I can't imagine he hasn't been asked to be an inspector at the very least.
I have to agree about Sean. Unlikely to sell out. For one thing, he's too busy producing great stock and making money to want to take the time to moderate the forums or serve in some other administrative capacity.
-
Yep. Another sellout. At least he is locking threads tactfully, even though they are still getting locked.
I totally expect sjlocke to be next. :-\
I don't think Sean can be easily bought silenced. It would have been really easy for him to stay off the iStock forums and here: most of the other top hitters are 'invisible', and he hasn't so far.
I can't imagine he hasn't been asked to be an inspector at the very least.
I have to agree about Sean. Unlikely to sell out. For one thing, he's too busy producing great stock and making money to want to take the time to moderate the forums or serve in some other administrative capacity.
I hope you all are right.
-
Why does Lobo have to lock every single thread with a snarky comment? Why not a "We are very concerned with protecting our contributors IP rights. Thanks for noticing, we are looking into it."?
Oh, wait, that's because they don't give a crap about you and your IP rights (and it shines through time and again).
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289322&page=2#post5545062[/url])
I don't think it is that snarky. It gives the required information. And it is likely a canned response using a macro. As in lock this thread and a moderator selects a canned response from a list.
If it's a canned response, it must be something that was just instituted because his remarks in the past have been downright rude, snarky and arrogant.
Totally agree, have noticed this in the past and thought how unprofessional .... there is always one ;)
-
I see kelvinjay locking threads now
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291562&page=1[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291542&page=1[/url])
and very little of Lobo. Do you think he quit, or got promoted to CEO? ;)
Yeah, I just noticed they made Kelvin a moderator. Too bad.
Although he was always a vocal and clever critic of IS policy when necessary, I had noticed that recently his posts were very much towing the company line. Now his complete 180 in the forums makes sense.
Very clever of Istock. Silence one of your most effective critics by putting him on the payroll.
I had noticed that shift too. Such a shame. I really like Kelvin. Never thought he could be bought out like that.
He is way better than Lobo, though.
-
I spotted a thread on the IS forum regarding deactivation of images. Guess what...that's broken now too. I am so pis*ed at all of this nonsense. Now I can't even continue deactivating my images.
It just worked yesterday and days before because I have been deactivating non-sellers for the past two months. The deactivated images were taking a week or two to be purged out of my portfolio, but at least if someone clicked on the image in my port, it took you to a deactivation page and the image couldn't be purchased. Now, nothing happens. I deactivate the image, but you can still go to the buying page.
If I were independently wealthy, you can believe I'd be filing a lawsuit. This is ALL just plain bullsh*t.
edit: so kelvinjay suggested deactivating the image twice. He says it's been that way for a year. Well, I've been deactivating regularly for the past two months and I haven't had to do everything twice. Until now. So now, we're being punished for deactivating by being made to do everything twice. I can't wait to be done with this site.
-
I spotted a thread on the IS forum regarding deactivation of images. Guess what...that's broken now too. I am so pis*ed at all of this nonsense. Now I can't even continue deactivating my images.
It just worked yesterday and days before because I have been deactivating non-sellers for the past two months. The deactivated images were taking a week or two to be purged out of my portfolio, but at least if someone clicked on the image in my port, it took you to a deactivation page and the image couldn't be purchased. Now, nothing happens. I deactivate the image, but you can still go to the buying page.
If I were independently wealthy, you can believe I'd be filing a lawsuit. This is ALL just plain bullsh*t.
I'll save you the trip to iStock forums.. "I'm so sorry you are having trouble. Please send in a support ticket." or "We are aware of this issue and are working on it. We will post an update soon."
-
I spotted a thread on the IS forum regarding deactivation of images. Guess what...that's broken now too. I am so pis*ed at all of this nonsense. Now I can't even continue deactivating my images.
It just worked yesterday and days before because I have been deactivating non-sellers for the past two months. The deactivated images were taking a week or two to be purged out of my portfolio, but at least if someone clicked on the image in my port, it took you to a deactivation page and the image couldn't be purchased. Now, nothing happens. I deactivate the image, but you can still go to the buying page.
If I were independently wealthy, you can believe I'd be filing a lawsuit. This is ALL just plain bullsh*t.
I'll save you the trip to iStock forums.. "I'm so sorry you are having trouble. Please send in a support ticket." or "We are aware of this issue and are working on it. We will post an update soon."
kelvinjay offered the support ticket solution, or post the number you want deactivated and he would look into it. Right.
-
If I were a conspiracy-minded person, I might wonder if the deactivating of images was broken on purpose, coming as it does, right as the lower royalties kick in....
-
If I were a conspiracy-minded person, I might wonder if the deactivating of images was broken on purpose, coming as it does, right as the lower royalties kick in....
Do you believe that the IS programmers would be technically capable of that? I doubt it. Something else would have stopped working instead.
-
If I were a conspiracy-minded person, I might wonder if the deactivating of images was broken on purpose, coming as it does, right as the lower royalties kick in....
If I were a conspiracy-minded person (and I am) I might agree with you, and maybe they "accidentally" pushed that through, along with the lower royalty rates. But there are so many other things f*cked up, I think it's just another "try to fix one thing and break 5 more" thing.
-
If I were a conspiracy-minded person, I might wonder if the deactivating of images was broken on purpose, coming as it does, right as the lower royalties kick in....
Do you believe that the IS programmers would be technically capable of that? I doubt it. Something else would have stopped working instead.
hahaa.. that's exactly what I was thinking. You're giving them way too much credit. It's incompetence, pure and simple. I don't think I have ever seen a worse launch of a website than this latest F5. it's a never ending game of wack-a-mole. this is beyond fail.
-
edit: so kelvinjay suggested deactivating the image twice. He says it's been that way for a year. Well, I've been deactivating regularly for the past two months and I haven't had to do everything twice. Until now. So now, we're being punished for deactivating by being made to do everything twice. I can't wait to be done with this site.
It's taken two times for me for as long as I can remember. Occasionally one time will work, but not reliably.
-
edit: so kelvinjay suggested deactivating the image twice. He says it's been that way for a year. Well, I've been deactivating regularly for the past two months and I haven't had to do everything twice. Until now. So now, we're being punished for deactivating by being made to do everything twice. I can't wait to be done with this site.
It's taken two times for me for as long as I can remember. Occasionally one time will work, but not reliably.
And I believe you, and I believe him. But I haven't experienced that before today. I did notice a few minutes ago, when I deactivated 15 more, that it was hit and miss. Sometimes it would work on the first try. Sometimes it would look like it didn't work, so I would do it a second time, and then the second time, the deactivation history would show and it had been deactivated twice.
-
Cathy, is deactivating twice working?
-
edit: so kelvinjay suggested deactivating the image twice. He says it's been that way for a year. Well, I've been deactivating regularly for the past two months and I haven't had to do everything twice. Until now. So now, we're being punished for deactivating by being made to do everything twice. I can't wait to be done with this site.
It's taken two times for me for as long as I can remember. Occasionally one time will work, but not reliably.
Like SENDing sitemails this last couple of weeks.
-
Cathy, is deactivating twice working?
Yes. And probably it's working the first time, but I'm not going to take any chances, I just go ahead and do it two times or until I actually see the deactivation page. And I also get an email saying it's been deactivated, as verification.
-
I think someone needs to start a list on what *isn't* broken at iStock. At this point, I think it would be a very very short one.
Here's another "bug" (minor one, but, like I said, what *isn't* broken?)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291822&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291822&page=1)
-
edit: so kelvinjay suggested deactivating the image twice. He says it's been that way for a year. Well, I've been deactivating regularly for the past two months and I haven't had to do everything twice. Until now. So now, we're being punished for deactivating by being made to do everything twice. I can't wait to be done with this site.
It's taken two times for me for as long as I can remember. Occasionally one time will work, but not reliably.
I deactivated close to 700 images in the last two weeks of December and only clicked once for each of them. And it worked every time.
But: Sometimes after clicking on "Deactivate" it showed the deactivation page, sometimes the site went back to the original image page as if nothing had happened. But the image was deactivated in all cases, and I received a deactivation notice via email in all cases.
-
Is the search working for you guys?
My search button all of a sudden died (was alive yesterday) and nothing can get it to work.
Fail fail epic fail...
-
iStock has managed to give a whole new meaning to F5.
another broken piece.. uploading Model Releases
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291942&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291942&page=1)
-
Is the search working for you guys?
My search button all of a sudden died (was alive yesterday) and nothing can get it to work.
Fail fail epic fail...
Well, in a way it's working.
I typed in 'horse' and it worked.
I then typed in 'black' to the left hand refine box, and it worked.
However, just after I hit search on 'black' I noticed a file in the 'horse' which didn't have a horse in it.
So I hit the back button to get back to the general horse page, and got a page of blanks which needed a couple of refreshes to bring back the thums.
-
Ah, at least you get it to actually 'search' for things ShadySue.
I can click my search button until i weigh an ounce, nothing happening at all. (and the buyers using the same FF 3.0.19 probably are stuck with the same dead 'search' button too)
-
Ah, at least you get it to actually 'search' for things ShadySue.
I can click my search button until i weigh an ounce, nothing happening at all. (and the buyers using the same FF 3.0.19 probably are stuck with the same dead 'search' button too)
How do you find out which FF version you've got? I use the most recent Windows version.
-
How do you find out which FF version you've got? I use the most recent Windows version.
Go up to the help on the top bar -> about Mozilla Firefox. You can see which version you're using there Liz
-
ETA: sue beat me to it :)
-
How do you find out which FF version you've got? I use the most recent Windows version.
Go up to the help on the top bar -> about Mozilla Firefox. You can see which version you're using there Liz
Tx Sue and Artemis. Seems I'm using 3.6.13
-
I think iStock is probably fully aware that they need to bolster their IT practices at this point..I don't know how many issues they need to suffer (and make us suffer through) before getting on top of their IT systems. staff and infrastructure.....more of both....
-
A new and special hell for illustrators. (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=292692&page=1) ::)
-
Wow, no crown either. Just a yellow paintbrush? How disappointing.
-
Wow, no crown either. Just a yellow paintbrush? How disappointing.
But really, crowns aren't what will make you happy. ;)
-
Wow, no crown either. Just a yellow paintbrush? How disappointing.
But really, crowns aren't what will make you happy. ;)
Wait, what? I thought it was money that wouldn't make us happy. But looks like money OR crowns won't make us happy. ::)
-
I am shocked, shocked I tell you that yet another thing broke just when they made other bug searches.
-
Have we listed the Delayed Royalties Bug? I've got three.
It seems that there are all sorts of payments due to us disappearing into bugs and only being discovered by wary, watchful contributors. Worrying.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1)
-
Have we listed the Delayed Royalties Bug? I've got three.
It seems that there are all sorts of payments due to us disappearing into bugs and only being discovered by wary, watchful contributors. Worrying.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1[/url])
I have 5 and Sean has over 100 I think.
We're promised a fix "soon". But we've been nagging for a week in the forums to even get an acknowledgment that there is a problem. It's truly pathetic.
-
Have we listed the Delayed Royalties Bug? I've got three.
It seems that there are all sorts of payments due to us disappearing into bugs and only being discovered by wary, watchful contributors. Worrying.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1[/url])
Ah __ that might explain why my sales at IS are projected to be nearly 30% down on last January then. Mind you, come to think of it, that wouldn't explain why my sales at SS are nearly the same 30% up. It's like they just swapped places on my chart. Must be something else going on.
-
Have we listed the Delayed Royalties Bug? I've got three.
It seems that there are all sorts of payments due to us disappearing into bugs and only being discovered by wary, watchful contributors. Worrying.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1[/url])
Yep, worrying to say the least.
When people were complaining about their 10% EL bonus still not being payed, even after they ran "the script that supposedly fixed it" the reply was "if you still notice an EL bonus missing shoot a ticket to support".
Fine for those that check the forums, but what about the ones that don't (the vast majority i'd think)... yet more money slipping through the cracks for istock i suppose?
-
holy crap! I hadn't noticed that! I have 8 in the delayed royalties.. one going all the way back to Jan 5!
-
Ever since F5 I have had a heck of a time finding where things are buried.
Where does one find the 'delayed royalties' section now?
-
Ever since F5 I have had a heck of a time finding where things are buried.
Where does one find the 'delayed royalties' section now?
F5 didn't change that. my_uploads->subscriptions
-
Ah, then that explains it... I am opted out of subs.
Thanks Sean!
-
Ever since F5 I have had a heck of a time finding where things are buried.
Where does one find the 'delayed royalties' section now?
F5 didn't change that. my_uploads->subscriptions
Thanks for mentioning it everyone. I found one, not new, old from June and it says sub .19 under last DL column, that's the only one and I'm pretty happy that I don't have more 19 cent sales.
-
Ah, then that explains it... I am opted out of subs.
Thanks Sean!
Can you tell me where one opts out of subs? I am opted out of partner programs, but I still have a delayed royalty of $1.93 under subs. I was under the impression that one couldn't opt out of subs on IS.
-
3 Royalty delays pending from Jan. 6, 12, 15th.
-
Ah, then that explains it... I am opted out of subs.
Thanks Sean!
Can you tell me where one opts out of subs? I am opted out of partner programs, but I still have a delayed royalty of $1.93 under subs. I was under the impression that one couldn't opt out of subs on IS.
You can't opt out of subs.
-
Ah, then that explains it... I am opted out of subs.
Thanks Sean!
Can you tell me where one opts out of subs? I am opted out of partner programs, but I still have a delayed royalty of $1.93 under subs. I was under the impression that one couldn't opt out of subs on IS.
You can't opt out of subs.
Thanks for verifying, that's what I thought.
-
And yesterday, the slated date for Vetta/Agency images going live on Getty, only 40 of the entire bunch actually made it over.
I actually was naive enough to think that one was going to work!
-
Ah, then that explains it... I am opted out of subs.
Thanks Sean!
Can you tell me where one opts out of subs? I am opted out of partner programs, but I still have a delayed royalty of $1.93 under subs. I was under the impression that one couldn't opt out of subs on IS.
You can't opt out of subs.
Thanks for verifying, that's what I thought.
Right, meant the PP.
I haven't had a subs sale in so long I forgot there is no connection.
-
And yesterday, the slated date for Vetta/Agency images going live on Getty, only 40 of the entire bunch actually made it over.
I actually was naive enough to think that one was going to work!
Oh, how does one see if they made it to Getty?
I see the column and my shots are there... How would I know if there are really actually on the Getty site?
-
And yesterday, the slated date for Vetta/Agency images going live on Getty, only 40 of the entire bunch actually made it over.
I actually was naive enough to think that one was going to work!
Oh, how does one see if they made it to Getty?
I see the column and my shots are there... How would I know if there are really actually on the Getty site?
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?p=images&family=creative&contractUrl=1&b=VTA (http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?p=images&family=creative&contractUrl=1&b=VTA)
-
So if I'm looking at that correctly, there are only 40 Vetta images ported over thus far?
-
If I'm reading that correctly are XS Vetta images really selling for only $5 there? Istock doesn't even offer an XS Vetta size, does it? And why are some of those even Vetta? A fence and a road? Some leaves? I still don't get the Vetta criteria.
-
Looks that way. Whee, $5 blog pricing for Vetta!
-
Looks that way. Whee, $5 blog pricing for Vetta!
but you get 20% of that 5$
-
They seem to be completely down at the moment. I tried to check my stats 20 minutes ago and couldn't get in. Just tried again at 9pm EST and still no dice. All the other sites seem to be working fine so I doubt the problem is from my end.
-
It's working, as well as it ever does, search and forums, and has been all evening. Maybe you just caught a 'blip'.
Uploads are disallowed right now, but we were given notice of that.
OTOH, a contributor mentioned not being about to get into her own port about 20 mins ago:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293752&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293752&page=1)
I can see her port now.
-
It's still a mess. Portfolio shows and then doesn't show, searches show, but formatting is a mess, credit prices changed for some people, and it's basically another typical h*cked-up rollout. Again, no evidence of any pre-prod testing.
-
yet another new bug... http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293772&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293772&page=1)
-
what happened to the site? lost css file?
-
what happened to the site? lost css file?
Getty
-
OMG! On and on it goes.
-
Yep, it now went completely bonkers.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=1)
-
Yep, it now went completely bonkers.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=1[/url])
Lobo (from the above mentioned thread): "There appear to be some issues occurring on the site..." - That's got to be the understatement of the year, if not the decade... :D
-
AAAARRRRRRRUUUUUGGGG!
There, I feel better now. No, actually I don't.
My Dec. was the wost one I've had since going exclusive and Jan. is not looking so hot either.
I am giving it one more month to fix all the screw-ups and then I'm turning in my crown if things are not better.
-
That site's grossly overcomplicated and instead of simplifying it to get back to something stable (it was, once, remember?) they just pile more and more complications on top of it. My sales in the past 24 hours seem to be pathetic, I've no idea if that is because they would be pathetic anyway, because they are not being recorded or because the search has been broken.
-
Looks that way. Whee, $5 blog pricing for Vetta!
Bad lighting, over-filtration .... fair price, I'd say ;)
-
So the site is down again during the working week. I missed the next level by about 1 working day, most of the week days during January would have given me close to or enough RCs to make the 37,000 level. This is just crazy, how can they launch this stuff during the week without testing it first... again, and again and again?!?
-
had enough of istock and its dictatorial approach. i spotted the potential for this a long long time ago, but if you post anything even remotely negative on the forums someone kicks you in the teeth. the corporate graveyard is full of companies that stuck their fingers in the air and went 'blah, blah, blah'. you've got to listen to the stuff you don't like guys. perhaps even more so than the arse-licking..... they are now banning complaints on the forum and want them to be sent as support tickets instead - so they can 'filter out the real issues'. but there's still a guy reading the complaints and deleting them???? has someone pushed the self-destruct button there?
-
All sort of weird things today at IS site. Someone needs to be fired quickly ... how about Mr Thompson?
And people go away...
"Thanks guys - I'll leave you to it and do something more productive. Good luc"
"search not working on Firefox 3.0.19 on OS. Sorry but this means at the moment I am having to go elsewhere to get my images!!! This was also happening before Christmas when eventually I had to buy an image from an alternative online photo supplier."
-
A question...
Have iStock ever apologised for any of this - either to the buyers or the contributors? I'm just curious because I've never seen any apology.
-
:( I just have to vent here. I can't even login at iStock. My video files are constantly showing up as photo files, the site is a complete mess. How can a company this big mess up this much?
I thought once they redid the site it would be more stable. We have more problems now then we did before! I can only imagine if Amazon ran this way! I would like a stable site long before
we have new ideas to add to it! This is just plain crazy
-
The thread title speaks for itself... really epic fail for Istock.
The site seems to lose CSS file.
I guess that explains why my sales in SS is increasing lately.
-
The more fixes are released, worse gets the site.
Resign, Mr Thompson!!!!!
-
I think we have now moved into the realm of SPECTACULAR epic fail.
-
I think we have now moved into the realm of SPECTACULAR epic fail.
no kidding! worst site F5 ever. gives a whole new meaning to F5. instead of "woo-yay!" it's now "run-away!"
-
no kidding! worst site F5 ever. gives a whole new meaning to F5. instead of "woo-yay!" it's now "run-away!"
LOL!
But seriously, what a disaster. Every day I think that some sort of improvements will be happening and the site and contributors will resume making money, but it just seems to get worse and worse. :( Though I do think someone there is making money, just not me.
-
had enough of istock and its dictatorial approach. i spotted the potential for this a long long time ago, but if you post anything even remotely negative on the forums someone kicks you in the teeth. the corporate graveyard is full of companies that stuck their fingers in the air and went 'blah, blah, blah'. you've got to listen to the stuff you don't like guys. perhaps even more so than the arse-licking..... they are now banning complaints on the forum and want them to be sent as support tickets instead - so they can 'filter out the real issues'. but there's still a guy reading the complaints and deleting them???? has someone pushed the self-destruct button there?
+1
-
That site's grossly overcomplicated and instead of simplifying it to get back to something stable (it was, once, remember?) they just pile more and more complications on top of it. My sales in the past 24 hours seem to be pathetic, I've no idea if that is because they would be pathetic anyway, because they are not being recorded or because the search has been broken.
I don't think they'd have been poor anyways. my sales have been really good the past two weeks. but today they're slow and intermittent. I'm assuming it's the site issues. delayed royalties have been paid though.
-
I think we have now moved into the realm of SPECTACULAR epic fail.
No wait __ everything is going to be OK after all. RM says they've just fixed all the old problems with some new kit;
"Last night we went live with a massive overhaul of our backend infrastructure. This is a project that we've been working on for close to a year.
Our old system had a large number of individual machines that were linked together with a really complicated set of code- some of which dates back to the early days of the site.
What we have now is a new set of more robust, modern machines, and a new up-to-date code base connecting everything.
What this will all do is
- give us a huge upgrade in our extensibility and scalability. It is now much, much easier for us to add new storage, new information, and new code.
- improve who all the different parts of the system work with each other.
- cut out a lot of the old 'cruft' in the code base."
Phew __ big relief!
-
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
-
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
As a famous typo queen, I'm assuming it's supposed to be 'crud'.
-
No wait __ everything is going to be OK after all. RM says they've just fixed all the old problems with some new kit;
Or in other words they got rid of the Sinclair ZX-81 and bagged themselves a shiny new netbook to run the site from. Obviously this extra expense will add to the unsustainable finances of the site and someone will have to pay - wonder who.
-
As a famous typo queen, I'm assuming it's supposed to be 'crud'.
Ahhh... now that I understand.
:D @ RT's Spectrum reference.
-
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
Here's (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruft) the definition.
-
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
Here's ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruft[/url]) the definition.
And when referring to IS, all of those definitions apply. ;)
-
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
Here's ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruft[/url]) the definition.
Oooooh.
Something else I didn't know. :-\
-
Aha! Thank you JS. Great algorithm :D
:D @ Cathy
@ Sue... no shame in not knowing something you've never seen before. Anyway.. we know now ;D
-
My 2-day istock sales slump has been accompanied by a 2-day on-demand download surge at Shutterstock and a bit of a recovery at DT and 123. All a coincidence? Maybe.
-
Whoops __ looks like things might be getting even worse for exclusives unfortunate enough to be in the PP. This has just been posted on the IS forum;
"Maybe itīs been announced and Iīve missed it. The PP payout for december just started and I got .25c per file. I used to receive .32c
Is this a glitch or the royalties have changed?"
Maybe they've 're-aligned' PP royalties to reflect the amount paid under the RC system? If it turns out to be a glitch then what a surprising cooincidence that it happens to be in Getty's favour! Again.
It just never stops does it?
-
Whoops __ looks like things might be getting even worse for exclusives unfortunate enough to be in the PP. This has just been posted on the IS forum;
"Maybe itīs been announced and Iīve missed it. The PP payout for december just started and I got .25c per file. I used to receive .32c
Is this a glitch or the royalties have changed?"
Maybe they've 're-aligned' PP royalties to reflect the amount paid under the RC system? If it turns out to be a glitch then what a surprising cooincidence that it happens to be in Getty's favour! Again.
It just never stops does it?
I thought PP sales didn't count towards RCs?
-
I thought PP sales didn't count towards RCs?
That's true but I guess they could now be paying PP royalties according to the 'royalty level' of the individual contributor rather than the 'canister level' as in the past. Could they really have been sneaky enough to slip that in __ and also stupid enough to think that no-one would notice? Surely not.
-
I thought PP sales didn't count towards RCs?
That's true but I guess they could now be paying PP royalties according to the 'royalty level' of the individual contributor rather than the 'canister level' as in the past. Could they really have been sneaky enough to slip that in __ and also stupid enough to think that no-one would notice? Surely not.
Wow! That would certainly be another very large can of worms...!!
-
Wow! That would certainly be another very large can of worms...!!
I know! I'm sitting here with a great big cheesy grin very serious expression on my face.
-
RM has hit his "we're looking into it" button.
-
I think we have now moved into the realm of SPECTACULAR epic fail.
No wait __ everything is going to be OK after all. RM says they've just fixed all the old problems with some new kit;
"Last night we went live with a massive overhaul of our backend infrastructure. This is a project that we've been working on for close to a year.
Our old system had a large number of individual machines that were linked together with a really complicated set of code- some of which dates back to the early days of the site.
What we have now is a new set of more robust, modern machines, and a new up-to-date code base connecting everything.
What this will all do is
- give us a huge upgrade in our extensibility and scalability. It is now much, much easier for us to add new storage, new information, and new code.
- improve who all the different parts of the system work with each other.
- cut out a lot of the old 'cruft' in the code base."
Phew __ big relief!
They sure do have a weird definition of "fix". Or have all the site problems disappeared in the last four hours since I was away from the computer?
-
I thought PP sales didn't count towards RCs?
That's true but I guess they could now be paying PP royalties according to the 'royalty level' of the individual contributor rather than the 'canister level' as in the past. Could they really have been sneaky enough to slip that in __ and also stupid enough to think that no-one would notice? Surely not.
Wow! That would certainly be another very large can of worms...!!
They're not, it's just another cock-up. I've had two for 25c each, unaffected by the 15% drop in my earnings level. So I guess that they've forgotten to tell the revamped system that PP are on a different rate for exclusives. They did the reverse at the start of the PP programme and for the first month, a year ago, paid non-exclusives the exclusive rate. They let us keep the odd extra pennies, too, strangely.
-
No payoneer payments today... Cut my royalties and don't pay me. Well done, Istock.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294092&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294092&page=1)
-
Well, I just went over to IS to delete 10 more of my images. The first attempt, I get one of those drop down boxes that says XHR Error Code 503 Service Unavailable. Clear browser cache, reload page and try again. So I did that. I managed to get one photo deactivated. On the second try, I was redirected to a full page, cutesy cartoony Woops! page, saying the same thing. And subsequent tries, same thing. So I went over to the forum, looking for the thread I posted in a few days ago about Deactivating being messed up, and guess what...can't even get to the forum! The same Woops! page comes up!
OMG, what is these people's problem? Every freakin day, the mess compounds itself.
-
Yep. 503 error. About 30 min now.
-
I thought "epic fail" was a touch over-dramatic when this thread was launched but iStock has gone out of its way every week since then to add veracity to the description.
I suppose it is time we gave buyers yet another discount to compensate them for our lost sales today. At least I will only be donating 17% of the discount, not 20% the way I used to.
-
I thought "epic fail" was a touch over-dramatic when this thread was launched but iStock has gone out of its way every week since then to add veracity to the description.
Perfect analysis and observation of the situation. :)
+1
-
Looks like the 503 errors are gone, but now no confirmation email is being sent after deactivation of an image.
-
And Payoneer payments are delayed this week, possibly until Friday (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294092&messageid=5656632).
-
Anyone else having newly approved uploads saying they are unavailable and contact support?
-
"cruft" ? What does that mean?
(I thought that was a single dog show..)
Here's ([url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruft[/url]) the definition.
Darn I liked your link better, but here's another one:
Cruft is a collective term for the elements of a program, system or product that are either useless, poorly designed or both. In computing, cruft describes areas of redundant, improper or simply badly written code, as well as old or inferior hardware and electronics.
ps That stuff under the bed was known as "Dust Bunnies" before we had digital sensors with spots. :D
-
Anyone else having newly approved uploads saying they are unavailable and contact support?
I do, it started happening today. I was going to wait until the morning and contact them in if it continues.
-
It's been reported and noted in the help thread here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293812&page=8).
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294302&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294302&page=1)
Another bug on the Main Page...
"Check out this week's free:" link to the wrong location...
I guess they will delete that post in seconds...
Pav
-
Right now, site slooooooooooooow........
-
Yes, it's ambling like a tortoise.... must be all something to do with all those shiny new machines and the elimination of 'cruft'.
-
And my payoneer payment still stucked... >:(
-
"The team is looking into the current performance issues of the site."
(Maybe they could hard wire to suck some of the energy from EvilClown's avatar? or maybe I should do that!)
-
And my payoneer payment still stucked... >:(
Patience, pumpkin; it's not 9a.m. in iStockland for hours yet.
-
And my payoneer payment still stucked... >:(
Patience, pumpkin; it's not 9a.m. in iStockland for hours yet.
Patience. Hard to keep after all sort of problems and royalties cuts. And now payments delay. What's next?
-
double post
-
And my payoneer payment still stucked... >:(
Patience, pumpkin; it's not 9a.m. in iStockland for hours yet.
Patience. Hard to keep after all sort of problems and royalties cuts. And now payments delay. What's next?
Sorry, I couldn't decide what sort of smiley was appropriate for my comment. It certainly was meant to be sympathetic to you :-*; but I doubt if anything will be resolved before office time in Calgary. But maybe it's in the Payoneer system already.
And yup, the site is crawling like treacle. I made a cup of tea in the time it took me to get into a file to wiki it. How mamy buyers would stay that long?
Update: the wiki page is just blank white, so I guess I'll have drunk the tea and eaten the cake ... ::)
2nd Update, so then the site made me log in again.
"They've heard of customers, but want no truck with them"
-
SEAN - are you up yet???
Are your sales significantly down this morning? Just wondering how willing buyers are willing to put up with this cr*p.
-
In fact, this is getting ridiculous. Complaining doesn't work, IS people are lost, communication about the fixes are demoralized (it's ok now, but don't). It's a management problem and some heads needs to roll.
-
I made a cup of tea in the time it took me to get into a file to wiki it. How mamy buyers would stay that long?
I made a cup of tea in the time between hitting F5 and seeing my balance refresh... ;)
(Mannn I'm drinking a lot of tea lately...)
-
I made a cup of tea in the time it took me to get into a file to wiki it. How mamy buyers would stay that long?
I made a cup of tea in the time between hitting F5 and seeing my balance refresh... ;)
(Mannn I'm drinking a lot of tea lately...)
Waiting for increases on my balance is like Waiting for Godot, these days. :'(
-
I donīt know if KKThompson will resign but Chief Information Officer or IT Manager or whoever that is should seriously consider resigning.
-
Awww, Sue! :'( <Makes Sue another cup of tea>
-
I donīt know if KKThompson will resign but Chief Information Officer or IT Manager or whoever that is should seriously consider resigning.
Could it be a disgruntled employee that screwed everything up? ??? Just speculating; but hey, anything is possible! :-X
-
I've wondered that too. It otherwise seems inexplicable.
-
"iStockphoto is experiencing technical difficulties
Follow us on Twitter"
Site is down.. Unbelievable..
-
New blue screen of death:
"iStockphoto is experiencing technical difficulties
Follow us on Twitter"
-
The site is dead. Maybe an update or something.
-
Oh God, I hope it's not another 'improvement'.
-
Oh God, I hope it's not another 'improvement'.
Hopefully, they're fixing the last 'improvement'.
Oh, it seems like solving last night's 503 errors brought on the massive slowdown.
Or maybe the two are entirely unconnected SNAFUs.
As the last twitter update was ten hours ago, it makes no sense for the 'technical difficulties' screen to direct us there.
-
Oh God, I hope it's not another 'improvement'.
Hopefully, they're fixing the last 'improvement'.
Oh, it seems like solving last night's 503 errors brought on the massive slowdown.
Or maybe the two are entirely unconnected SNAFUs.
This is the message from twitter though from 12 hours ago:
"Figured out what was causing the 503 errors - things should be getting back to normal now!
about 12 hours ago via web"
Now when? :o
-
Site is down totally....It's been slow all morning
-
SEAN - are you up yet???
Are your sales significantly down this morning? Just wondering how willing buyers are willing to put up with this cr*p.
Thrilling to wake up to a blue death screen. However we have 8 inches of snow outside, so that's fun.
-
And still, after half an hour, nothing relevant on Twitter.
What's the point?
-
SEAN - are you up yet???
Are your sales significantly down this morning? Just wondering how willing buyers are willing to put up with this cr*p.
Thrilling to wake up to a blue death screen. However we have 8 inches of snow outside, so that's fun.
Go take some snow pictures.
-
And still, after half an hour, nothing relevant on Twitter.
What's the point?
The blue screen refers us to Twitter for updates. So I go to Twitter and the last post is about Vetta on Getty. I suppose if you are interested, then Getty has you as a captive audience until the site is up. If you're a contributor, it's as much as saying, "go pound sand!"
-
By the way, my stucked payoneer payment will remain stucked. :-\
-
They need to replace their oompah loompahs with real people who know more than a smidgeon about IT infrastructure and service.
-
I was thinking that the site most likely crashed due to the onslaught of customers scurrying over to buy stock at the new higher rates! ; :D
-
They need to replace their oompah loompahs with real people who know more than a smidgeon about IT infrastructure and service.
In fact, they need to replace real people with oompah loompahs. Oompah loompahs never fail. Mr Wonka chocolate factory runs fine.
-
So it looks like the "fix" broke more stuff:
- Free Steel Cage images aren't available
- Payoneer Payment is delayed
- Upload page isn't available
- Browser back button in searches clearing results
- Vetta Upload slots missing
- Approved images aren't available when the contributor checks the file directly from the file ID. It is indicating the file isn't available
-
And now they're offering buyers 15% off coupons on Twitter to make up for yesterday's site troubles. Someone suggested that they offer the contributors RCs to compensate the contributors as well. Wonder if that will fly. It would be a very nice gesture.
-
Did everyone see that long time contributor RayW is leaving the site?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1)
-
Very sad that someone who has been with Istock since 2002 feels the need to pack up and leave. He mentioned he's leaving as a contributor. As mainly a designer, with 89 files in his portfolio, I certainly hope he is taking his buying business elsewhere too. That is likely to have the most impact.
-
Very sad that someone who has been with Istock since 2002 feels the need to pack up and leave. He mentioned he's leaving as a contributor. As mainly a designer, with 89 files in his portfolio, I certainly hope he is taking his buying business elsewhere too. That is likely to have the most impact.
I admire his actions. I think many of us understand exactly where he's coming from. I wonder if he has ever been here to MSG? I'd enjoy reading more of his perspective on things.
-
Very sad that someone who has been with Istock since 2002 feels the need to pack up and leave. He mentioned he's leaving as a contributor. As mainly a designer, with 89 files in his portfolio, I certainly hope he is taking his buying business elsewhere too. That is likely to have the most impact.
I admire his actions. I think many of us understand exactly where he's coming from. I wonder if he has ever been here to MSG? I'd enjoy reading more of his perspective on things.
Ditto. I totally get it. I wish him the best of luck.
-
Very sad that someone who has been with Istock since 2002 feels the need to pack up and leave. He mentioned he's leaving as a contributor. As mainly a designer, with 89 files in his portfolio, I certainly hope he is taking his buying business elsewhere too. That is likely to have the most impact.
I admire his actions. I think many of us understand exactly where he's coming from. I wonder if he has ever been here to MSG? I'd enjoy reading more of his perspective on things.
I could have sworn I've seen him post here. Is there a way to search for a member?
-
Just to be clear, I admire his actions too. My post wasn't critical of what he's doing, at all. Hope it didn't come off sounding that way...?
Just suggesting that he should consider going elsewhere to buy also, if he hasn't already. Hitting a company in the wallet never hurts :)
-
Just to be clear, I admire his actions too. My post wasn't critical of what he's doing, at all. Hope it didn't come off sounding that way...?
Just suggesting that he should consider going elsewhere to buy also, if he hasn't already. Hitting a company in the wallet never hurts :)
I didn't read your post as critical at all. And I agree, I hope he is buying somewhere else too. :)
-
Just to be clear, I admire his actions too. My post wasn't critical of what he's doing, at all. Hope it didn't come off sounding that way...?
Just suggesting that he should consider going elsewhere to buy also, if he hasn't already. Hitting a company in the wallet never hurts :)
I didn't read your post as critical at all. And I agree, I hope he is buying somewhere else too. :)
me either. I agree as well. didn't mean for my quoting you in my reply (above) to make it sound like you were being critical. I guess I didn't really need to quote you but I was too lazy to remove it once I had done it... :)
-
+1 Anyone? LOL
-
+1 Anyone? LOL
Isn't that "Plus One" now, or "I wholeheartedly agree" if one wants to remain in good graces? LOL
-
I think we're supposed to sit down quietly, shut up or perhaps just say "Thank you sir. Please may I have another?"
Heavy hand to "solve" a non problem.
I do miss Rob. Even when an unpopular message had to be communicated, he did it with respect and grace. Gold standard of forum moderation in my book.
-
I do miss Rob. Even when an unpopular message had to be communicated, he did it with respect and grace. Gold standard of forum moderation in my book.
Amen to that.
Respect, humility, empathy, acknowledgement of mistakes, apologies... all these things go a long way in my book. They may not solve the problems, but they can prevent other problems that arise from an 'us and them' approach.
-
Left side menu disappear from "my uploads" page at Istuck.
Just another day.
-
I think we're supposed to sit down quietly, shut up or perhaps just say "Thank you sir. Please may I have another?"
Heavy hand to "solve" a non problem.
I do miss Rob. Even when an unpopular message had to be communicated, he did it with respect and grace. Gold standard of forum moderation in my book.
Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!
-
I think we're supposed to sit down quietly, shut up or perhaps just say "Thank you sir. Please may I have another?"
Heavy hand to "solve" a non problem.
I do miss Rob. Even when an unpopular message had to be communicated, he did it with respect and grace. Gold standard of forum moderation in my book.
Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!
+1
-
I think we're supposed to sit down quietly, shut up or perhaps just say "Thank you sir. Please may I have another?"
Heavy hand to "solve" a non problem.
I do miss Rob. Even when an unpopular message had to be communicated, he did it with respect and grace. Gold standard of forum moderation in my book.
Certain people have let their role as "traffic cop" go to their head and should really consider a career change.
-
Uh oh, someone inform Jan before it's too late!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&page=21#post5670412 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&page=21#post5670412)
+1 If I were a buyer I would be long gone. There are now plenty of places to get first rate images - millions of them. And I bet they are enjoying this immensly.
-
I think we're supposed to sit down quietly, shut up or perhaps just say "Thank you sir. Please may I have another?"
Heavy hand to "solve" a non problem.
I do miss Rob. Even when an unpopular message had to be communicated, he did it with respect and grace. Gold standard of forum moderation in my book.
Certain people have let their role as "traffic cop" go to their head and should really consider a career change.
Yes, Lobo is becoming increasingly annoyed with having to deal with forum posters. He needs a sabatical from the forums so that he can regroup and shed his attitude. Its' clear that he's pretty much fed up with the whole thing, so why do they keep him in that position? seriously banning posts with just a "+1" in them? hasn't he got better things to do?
-
wrong thread..
-
Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!
Thanks. I don't like the answer I got, but it's at least clear :)
-
I think we're supposed to sit down quietly, shut up or perhaps just say "Thank you sir. Please may I have another?"
Heavy hand to "solve" a non problem.
I do miss Rob. Even when an unpopular message had to be communicated, he did it with respect and grace. Gold standard of forum moderation in my book.
Certain people have let their role as "traffic cop" go to their head and should really consider a career change.
Yes, Lobo is becoming increasingly annoyed with having to deal with forum posters. He needs a sabatical from the forums so that he can regroup and shed his attitude. Its' clear that he's pretty much fed up with the whole thing, so why do they keep him in that position? seriously banning posts with just a "+1" in them? hasn't he got better things to do?
You see, if people can't agree with a post, JJRD won't even need to turn a blind eye before saying things like 'the silent majority still believe in iStockphoto". If that's true, it's because they don't know what's going on. I don't get the emails with updates, and I know others in my CN don't either.
Support said there were 'repeated problems' with both the email addys I gave them: one is my personal domain addy, the other is Live fka hotmail. I get emails in day and daily on the first, and occasional ones on the second, including payment emails from iStock.
Lobo never had any bother finding them. :P
-
Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!
Thanks. I don't like the answer I got, but it's at least clear :)
Yep, thanks for forcing IS to spell things out. I didn't think they would be able to build the "trap" without changing their language, or at least the definition of the word "illustration". But I guess it worked when they provided the little lexicon at the top. Tricky work lawyers. Seriously though, I feel really bad for people with mixed portfolios. Definition of IS 2011 = where you go to get punished for mastering multiple disciplines. :(
-
Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!
Thanks. I don't like the answer I got, but it's at least clear :)
Yep, thanks for forcing IS to spell things out. I didn't think they would be able to build the "trap" without changing their language, or at least the definition of the word "illustration". But I guess it worked when they provided the little lexicon at the top. Tricky work lawyers. Seriously though, I feel really bad for people with mixed portfolios. Definition of IS 2011 = where you go to get punished for mastering multiple disciplines. :(
wait.. can someone point me to what you're referring to here wrt the "joined up policy"?
-
trying - I'm new to this...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792)
JJRD
Posted 12 hours ago
Quote
Ok first things first. For the sake of this communication, let me start by sharing the structure of the Illustrations department here at iStock:
Senior Manager, Illustrations : bortonia, who reports to me
* Vector Lead : Colonel, who reports to bortonia
* 3D Lead : mevans, who reports to bortonia
* Raster Lead : diane555, who reports to bortonia
* Logo Lead : Paulywood, who reports to bortonia
This core team, working as a tight unit & assisted by selected Inspectors according to ''the file type'', define the basic rules of what it is to ''accept an illustration'' at iStock. This core team also works with key people in photo and video, in order to sync ''file types'' as much as possible & create an overall coherent unit. Yep... all these ''file types'' are illustrations. Yet, at iStock, we incorporate 3D renders as well as scanned and or pure digital raster illustrations within the broader ''photography'' category, due to the fact that they are by definition rasters. The team works as a unified unit to create and apply standards, yet the ''file type'' defines the actual product.
Within the context of this post, this is not up for debate.
Now, with that said, let's keep a tight focus here. The OP's proposed discussion is about ''considering going independent for illustrations but remaining exclusive for photos''. Within this scenario, here are the identified questions from the OP:
1. Question: Some other sites take JPEGs of illustrations and sell the Vector as an additional format (for more money). Is it OK for an independent illustrator but exclusive photographer to sell such JPEGS?
1. Answer: Yes, that is perfectly acceptable. At iStockphoto, the definition of ''an illustration'' (as a file type) is a vector EPS file. Yet, at Getty Images (as an example) the
iStockvectors Collection also offers to clients jpeg derivatives from those vector EPS files. What matters here and what is important to remember is the following: if an illustration is created in any Postscript driven software, iStock asks for the EPS, period (along with other zipped offerings to add value to the client). That doesn't mean that at other sites, the very same illustration couldn't come with jpeg versions. Selling jpg versions of an EPS file within this context will not affect your photography exclusivity status at iStock in no way, shape or form.
2. Question: What about JPEG illustrations that aren't photographs but aren't vectors either? There is a market for (and I used to sell when I was independent) non-vector illustrations. Seems to me that should be fair game.
2. Answer: They are not fair game, no. An exclusive iStockphoto photographer (file type) must agree to upload 3D renders & raster illustrations (scans or pure digital raster creations) to iStockphoto as RF. Again, the only difference that we consider is the file type for vector EPS files. Now, within this context, an independent artist for illustrations being exclusive for photos simply can't create any derivative of an actual Postscript driven illustration and upload it to iStockphoto. Needless to say, such cases are to be looked at on a case by case basis and common sense is to provide the proper decision from iStock.
3. Is it OK for an independent artist for illustrations being exclusive at iStock for photos to upload vectors elsewhere that are using a photo sold as an iStock exclusive file as a reference?
3. No. This would create a singular (and quite rare) situation in which we would need to take action.
I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto... and I hope these answers will help clarify the conversation. I also fully hope that soon, we will be in a position here to prove that remaining an exclusive at iStock is the way to go for our talented Illustrators. Perhaps the proposition will be surprising at first glance, perhaps part of that proposition will be a different offering starting with the letter V... who knows? I just want everybody, especially our Illustrators, to fully realize that you are a radically important part of who we are as a community of artists.
-
thanks! I just dont poke around the iStock forums much anymore.
-
I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto...
Hallelujah! I believe lord! I believe! We shall not turn from the path! Show us the way oh mighty priest of IStock (eyes glaze over)
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792[/url])
Perhaps the proposition will be surprising at first glance, perhaps part of that proposition will be a different offering starting with the letter V... who knows?
Hm... That almost sounds as if they will build a new website for vectors?
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792[/url])
Perhaps the proposition will be surprising at first glance, perhaps part of that proposition will be a different offering starting with the letter V... who knows?
Hm... That almost sounds as if they will build a new website for vectors?
That is from here...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291202&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291202&page=1)
says this:
We've been dropping vague hints for a while about upcoming initiatives for Vector artists here at iStock. One of those things is coming along well enough here that we can start talking about it.
When Vetta first came out, it was mostly about photo. Complexity wasn't really the best way to look at what should and shouldn't be in there.
We took vectors out of Vetta because we wanted to eventually create a premium Vector collection here at iStock that made sense for vectors. With it's own criteria and it's own pricing structure - something that really works for illustrators and lets you see higher prices for higher tiered stuff.
We are going to create this collection. It is still in the development stages and I don't have a lot of news yet, other than - it's coming.
-
I didn't read your post as critical at all. And I agree, I hope he is buying somewhere else too. :)
me either. I agree as well. didn't mean for my quoting you in my reply (above) to make it sound like you were being critical. I guess I didn't really need to quote you but I was too lazy to remove it once I had done it... :)
Thanks both of you. Good to know. Hard to know, sometimes, what tone our posts take on.
There's so much to complain about lately, I sometimes wonder if it looks like I am complaining when I'm not. ;)
-
JJRD
Posted 12 hours ago
Quote
Ok first things first. I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto... and I hope these answers will help clarify the conversation. I also fully hope that soon, we will be in a position here to prove that remaining an exclusive at iStock is the way to go for our talented Illustrators. Perhaps the proposition will be surprising at first glance, perhaps part of that proposition will be a different offering starting with the letter V... who knows? I just want everybody, especially our Illustrators, to fully realize that you are a radically important part of who we are as a community of artists.
------------------------
To paraphrase KK I think what JJ meant to say was "I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the uninformed silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto."
-
[ This probably a bit late, but I wanted to post here since this is where I saw mention of me]
My ears are burning!
I was quite surprised when a friend of mine told me I was being talked about here, especially since there were so few posts on my iS thread. I figured it was small-time news from a little fish, so I wasn't really surprised. I did know of this site but have never posted here before.
Anyway, the main reason I posted anything at all was simply to make my small statement regarding everything that has been happening at iS. It had gotten to the point that I just felt I could no longer contribute to their bottom line, not only because of what they were doing to their contributors, but also how they were doing it. Calgary has always had an attitude problem, so desperate to appear hip, trendy, and edgy. Bringing in people like JJRD and a few others added a new dimension, the we know best, you dont know what youre talking about, have a nice day*BOOT*. Combine that who-cares-what-you-think mindset with Getty now moving in and trying to milk their cash cow and you have one big messy fan.
I should have posted sooner than I did, closer to the time all the poo was flying, but things always get in the way. And I want you to know, for no particular reason that this decision was not a gut-wrenching, soul-searching one to make. Lets be honest here...my port is small, nothing great and not indicative of the great talent on iS and not a big money maker. I am not a pro photographer, merely a hobbyist, so I am not cutting off my nose to spite my face. And I do not begrudge anyone who feels as I do but decides to stay on iS. My intention was certainly not to guilt anyone into making a stand. My hope was that by being part of a small group of small fish, we could maybe make Calgary feel it and take some notice. Watch out for bubbles!! ;)
-
[ This probably a bit late, but I wanted to post here since this is where I saw mention of me]
My ears are burning!
I was quite surprised when a friend of mine told me I was being talked about here, especially since there were so few posts on my iS thread. I figured it was small-time news from a little fish, so I wasn't really surprised. I did know of this site but have never posted here before.
Anyway, the main reason I posted anything at all was simply to make my small statement regarding everything that has been happening at iS. It had gotten to the point that I just felt I could no longer contribute to their bottom line, not only because of what they were doing to their contributors, but also how they were doing it. Calgary has always had an attitude problem, so desperate to appear hip, trendy, and edgy. Bringing in people like JJRD and a few others added a new dimension, the we know best, you dont know what youre talking about, have a nice day*BOOT*. Combine that who-the--cares-what-you-think mindset with Getty now moving in and trying to milk their cash cow and you have one big messy fan.
I should have posted sooner than I did, closer to the time all the poo was flying, but things always get in the way. And I want you to know, for no particular reason that this decision was not a gut-wrenching, soul-searching one to make. Lets be honest here...my port is small, nothing great and not indicative of the great talent on iS and not a big money maker. I am not a pro photographer, merely a hobbyist, so I am not cutting off my nose to spite my face. And I do not begrudge anyone who feels as I do but decides to stay on iS. My intention was certainly not to guilt anyone into making a stand. My hope was that by being part of a small group of small fish, we could maybe make Calgary feel it and take some notice. Watch out for bubbles!! ;)
welcome Ray! I admire you for doing it, and I totally agree. There probably wasn't much response on the iStock thread because it's kind of difficult to find where the line is drawn these days in the iStock forums.
geee.. maybe we should start a new thread for "new istockers start here and say hello" :)
-
That's precisely why my post there was so watered down!
-
[ This probably a bit late, but I wanted to post here since this is where I saw mention of me]
My ears are burning!
I was quite surprised when a friend of mine told me I was being talked about here, especially since there were so few posts on my iS thread. I figured it was small-time news from a little fish, so I wasn't really surprised. I did know of this site but have never posted here before.
Anyway, the main reason I posted anything at all was simply to make my small statement regarding everything that has been happening at iS. It had gotten to the point that I just felt I could no longer contribute to their bottom line, not only because of what they were doing to their contributors, but also how they were doing it. Calgary has always had an attitude problem, so desperate to appear hip, trendy, and edgy. Bringing in people like JJRD and a few others added a new dimension, the we know best, you dont know what youre talking about, have a nice day*BOOT*. Combine that who-the--cares-what-you-think mindset with Getty now moving in and trying to milk their cash cow and you have one big messy fan.
I should have posted sooner than I did, closer to the time all the poo was flying, but things always get in the way. And I want you to know, for no particular reason that this decision was not a gut-wrenching, soul-searching one to make. Lets be honest here...my port is small, nothing great and not indicative of the great talent on iS and not a big money maker. I am not a pro photographer, merely a hobbyist, so I am not cutting off my nose to spite my face. And I do not begrudge anyone who feels as I do but decides to stay on iS. My intention was certainly not to guilt anyone into making a stand. My hope was that by being part of a small group of small fish, we could maybe make Calgary feel it and take some notice. Watch out for bubbles!! ;)
I feel EXACTLY like you do. I have been systematically deactivating my images over the past couple of months and should be finished soon. I don't think my leaving will even cause a tiny blip on the IS radar, but that's ok. This is about how much I am willing to take and how much I am NOT willing to take, and let's just say they crossed the line a long time ago.
Thanks for checking in, and as i said before, I admire your courage, even if the decision was easy.
-
We are going to create this collection. It is still in the development stages and I don't have a lot of news yet, other than - it's coming.
I wonder if this will be on the same time line as the logo collection. LOL
-
Ray, you made a courageous stand. Even if your port is small, you have invested time in the Istock community almost from the very beginning. To lose people like you says volumes about what has happened to community spirit there. Very sad.
Hope you will not be a stranger over here :)
-
Seems yet another thing is broken. People are reporting $0 royalties.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1)
-
Seems yet another thing is broken. People are reporting $0 royalties.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1[/url])
I see that Steel Cage suggestion was made. You'd think they could have some way of reporting that.
Also, if someone redeems free credits, e.g. if they manage to work out how to do it via a Moo card, how does that show on our uploads page?
-
I read this quote today from this page
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/postits-digital-tools-tech-intel-cz_lg_0122postits.html?feed=rss_mostemailed (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/postits-digital-tools-tech-intel-cz_lg_0122postits.html?feed=rss_mostemailed)
The article was talking about how most people prefer to use paper post-its to the many computer programs offering the same functionality.
I couldn't help thinking about all these bits of advice, on educating the buyer how to use the search on iStock, all the instructions to 'empty your cache and cookies' (which can be a d*mned nuisance if you do) etc.
Here's the quote :
"A stereotypical computer programmer dreams up a piece of software and insists that humans work by its rules. In contrast, office ethnographers tend to assume that people know what they are doing. So if a computer program isn't being used as intended, it's the program's fault, not the human's."
-
"A stereotypical computer programmer dreams up a piece of software and insists that humans work by its rules. In contrast, office ethnographers tend to assume that people know what they are doing. So if a computer program isn't being used as intended, it's the program's fault, not the human's."
Excellent! This is supposed to be the logic behind the iPad isn't it? To create products more in line with the way we work instinctively? Great stuff. It will probably take a while for the message to seep through...
Sounds as though 'Office Ethnographer' is a new term for the old 'HCI Specialist'?
-
"A stereotypical computer programmer dreams up a piece of software and insists that humans work by its rules. In contrast, office ethnographers tend to assume that people know what they are doing. So if a computer program isn't being used as intended, it's the program's fault, not the human's."
Excellent! This is supposed to be the logic behind the iPad isn't it? To create products more in line with the way we work instinctively? Great stuff. It will probably take a while for the message to seep through...
Sounds as though 'Office Ethnographer' is a new term for the old 'HCI Specialist'?
To think, I really thought at university I'd love to do Social Anthropology, but there were "no jobs in that"!
-
Funnily enough, Sue, I really wanted to be a HCI Specialist when I was at uni.... but it was too new, and the material was too vast.
Perhaps if microstock goes down the tubes, I'll look at becoming an 'Office Ethnographer' ;D
Life... it's all in the timing, eh?
-
"A stereotypical computer programmer dreams up a piece of software and insists that humans work by its rules. In contrast, office ethnographers tend to assume that people know what they are doing. So if a computer program isn't being used as intended, it's the program's fault, not the human's."
Excellent! This is supposed to be the logic behind the iPad isn't it? To create products more in line with the way we work instinctively? Great stuff. It will probably take a while for the message to seep through...
Sounds as though 'Office Ethnographer' is a new term for the old 'HCI Specialist'?
To think, I really thought at university I'd love to do Social Anthropology, but there were "no jobs in that"!
Wonderful, both of you.
When I was in college, it was determined that a degree in Psychology you qualified to deliver pizza's. English major you could sell shoes in a store. Poly-Sci maybe be a low paid intern. (hey Monica how did that work out?) and in Archaeology, if every employed person was to die, there would be more graduates in one year, than there were openings. Kind of like that image, supply and demand thing? :D
But back on topic. It appears that the programmers at IS don't bother to test the software before they release it, just make it run and unleash it. There's never time to do it right now, but always time to fix it later?
Please folks, back in the tent with all the rest of the loyal members and drink your nice complimentary iStock Kool-Aid. ::)
-
From Rogermexico:
"January 21
We should see several fixes happening early next week, for the search and the issues stemming from the mid-week downtime. I will have updates on Monday."
Lots of emotion coming. Fasten your seatbelts.
-
But back on topic. It appears that the programmers at IS don't bother to test the software before they release it, just make it run and unleash it. There's never time to do it right now, but always time to fix it later?
But what's the reason they're being rushed? I don't know of too many developers who rush rolling out updates. In fact, quite the opposite. They usually like to make sure it's right. I'm thinking management is pushing the IT dept to deploy updates on hard deadlines and deal with the issues later.
-
But back on topic. It appears that the programmers at IS don't bother to test the software before they release it, just make it run and unleash it. There's never time to do it right now, but always time to fix it later?
But what's the reason they're being rushed? I don't know of too many developers who rush rolling out updates. In fact, quite the opposite. They usually like to make sure it's right. I'm thinking management is pushing the IT dept to deploy updates on hard deadlines and deal with the issues later.
Which is totally counter-productive.
Which level of management isn't seeing this? Is it Kelly or is it the puppeteers?
-
Which level of management isn't seeing this? Is it Kelly or is it the puppeteers?
Sounds like a Sixties pop group. ;D
But would it be "Kelly and the Puppeteers"
or
"The Puppeteers and Kelly" ?
-
And there's the mysterious left hand navigation disappearance.
Now if you want to upload, you have to do it via your sitemail page.
Who would have guessed?
-
It looks like the $0 royalties are still going on. Amazing! Another "bug" that works in favor of iStock! Who wants to make bets that it's never completely fixed. I know people STILL waiting for their 10% EL bonuses from September.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1#post5682722 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1#post5682722)
-
More stuff not done/broken.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295342&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295342&page=1)
-
More stuff not done/broken.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295342&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295342&page=1[/url])
Requires a "fix" to simply update a calendar for the new year, an event which should have been, ah, rather anticipated in the scheme of things?
-
The iStockphoto site is truly crippled. Everyday I check the Help and Discussion forums and (foolishly) think that the reconstructed site nightmare will be over. But each time I look there is another handful of glitches added to the an ever growing pile of problems. I also fall prey to the promise of "Monday" and with the new week the nightmare will end. It's January 23, for H@ck sake! An IT replacement team could have been hired and trained (by Getty?) by now.
I once worked with a guy who use a focus group for his product research. He was always enthusiastic yet very ineffective. It turned out that his focus group was his wife and young children. I figure something like this went on when iStock did testing on their site revisions. :)
-
More stuff not done/broken.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295342&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=295342&page=1[/url])
Requires a "fix" to simply update a calendar for the new year, an event which should have been, ah, rather anticipated in the scheme of things?
I know, seriously!
-
And another old school iStocker is hitting the road. Anyone remember Kate of purple dildo fame. That's going way back...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1#post5683192 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1#post5683192)
-
Also interesting. Someone on the forums just noted that there has not been a new FIOTW in two or three weeks now. Bug or on its way out?
-
And another old school iStocker is hitting the road. Anyone remember Kate of purple dildo fame. That's going way back...
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1#post5683192[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1#post5683192[/url])
I won't tell Kate you said that! :D
-
I seem to remember her asking me if I wanted a little cheese with that whine when I complained about a rejection for a different reason altogether following a resubmit of an image! Probably 2004 or 2005. She became an inspector, briefly, I think. But that was back in the days of Peebert and a somewhat more wild west atmosphere :)
-
Did iStock ever do a Beta for the F5 update? A rhetorical question.
-
And another old school iStocker is hitting the road. Anyone remember Kate of purple dildo fame. That's going way back...
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1#post5683192[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422&page=1#post5683192[/url])
I won't tell Kate you said that! :D
"Way back" is of course a relative term, considering the actual age of the site. ;)
-
I seem to remember her asking me if I wanted a little cheese with that whine when I complained about a rejection for a different reason altogether following a resubmit of an image! Probably 2004 or 2005. She became an inspector, briefly, I think. But that was back in the days of Peebert and a somewhat more wild west atmosphere :)
:-[ Sounds like me. :D
And yeah, I was an inspector for a while. It was definitely a different place way back then. :D
-
I seem to remember her asking me if I wanted a little cheese with that whine when I complained about a rejection for a different reason altogether following a resubmit of an image! Probably 2004 or 2005. She became an inspector, briefly, I think. But that was back in the days of Peebert and a somewhat more wild west atmosphere :)
:-[ Sounds like me. :D
And yeah, I was an inspector for a while. It was definitely a different place way back then. :D
whoa! I didnt recognize you Kate, didn't realize you had changed your handle to "yawning dog" --- reminds me Niilo. Yeah, those were the good ole days when just the mere mention of purple would set off a flurry of NSFW posts.. lol! good to see ya -- tho I'm sure you don't remember me as I was usually too afraid of peebert to ever post much. :)
-
And there's the mysterious left hand navigation disappearance.
Now if you want to upload, you have to do it via your sitemail page.
Who would have guessed?
LOL, I thought I must have gone mad when it disappeared. Aren't upload, search and purchase the three absolutely crucial things that would never get forgotten in an "upgrade"? Wouldn't you have to be a complete moron to delete all the upload buttons on a crowdsource site? It disappeared from half the pages in the last major shake-up, I guess that was just the staging post for taking it off everything else. It must be an oversight that they left it on sitemail ... oh, and on the "site map".
I wonder how busy the inspectors are now.
-
I wonder how busy the inspectors are now.
52,397 in the queue just now: considerably up from the 44,XXX of a couple of weeks back.
-
And there's the mysterious left hand navigation disappearance.
Now if you want to upload, you have to do it via your sitemail page.
Who would have guessed?
LOL, I thought I must have gone mad when it disappeared. Aren't upload, search and purchase the three absolutely crucial things that would never get forgotten in an "upgrade"? Wouldn't you have to be a complete moron to delete all the upload buttons on a crowdsource site? It disappeared from half the pages in the last major shake-up, I guess that was just the staging post for taking it off everything else. It must be an oversight that they left it on sitemail ... oh, and on the "site map".
I wonder how busy the inspectors are now.
I am pretty sure they took that side navi away so that the My Uploads page would fit better in the browser (width-wise). You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
-
You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
So intuitive! Besides, "my account" doesn't do anything when I click on it. Is it a pop-up window that my blocker stops? Or does it just not work in Firefox?
-
I wonder how busy the inspectors are now.
52,397 in the queue just now: considerably up from the 44,XXX of a couple of weeks back.
Is there a way for a "normal" contributor to access such information, or is that only available to moderators and reviewers?
-
I wonder how busy the inspectors are now.
52,397 in the queue just now: considerably up from the 44,XXX of a couple of weeks back.
Is there a way for a "normal" contributor to access such information, or is that only available to moderators and reviewers?
I'm neither.
www.istockphoto.com/stats (http://www.istockphoto.com/stats)
-
I seem to remember her asking me if I wanted a little cheese with that whine when I complained about a rejection for a different reason altogether following a resubmit of an image! Probably 2004 or 2005. She became an inspector, briefly, I think. But that was back in the days of Peebert and a somewhat more wild west atmosphere :)
:-[ Sounds like me. :D
And yeah, I was an inspector for a while. It was definitely a different place way back then. :D
whoa! I didnt recognize you Kate, didn't realize you had changed your handle to "yawning dog" --- reminds me Niilo. Yeah, those were the good ole days when just the mere mention of purple would set off a flurry of NSFW posts.. lol! good to see ya -- tho I'm sure you don't remember me as I was usually too afraid of peebert to ever post much. :)
I remember you. :)
-
You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
So intuitive! Besides, "my account" doesn't do anything when I click on it. Is it a pop-up window that my blocker stops? Or does it just not work in Firefox?
it is supposed to pop up - it does for me and I'm using Firefox, both on windows and mac.. latest version of it.
-
I seem to remember her asking me if I wanted a little cheese with that whine when I complained about a rejection for a different reason altogether following a resubmit of an image! Probably 2004 or 2005. She became an inspector, briefly, I think. But that was back in the days of Peebert and a somewhat more wild west atmosphere :)
:-[ Sounds like me. :D
And yeah, I was an inspector for a while. It was definitely a different place way back then. :D
whoa! I didnt recognize you Kate, didn't realize you had changed your handle to "yawning dog" --- reminds me Niilo. Yeah, those were the good ole days when just the mere mention of purple would set off a flurry of NSFW posts.. lol! good to see ya -- tho I'm sure you don't remember me as I was usually too afraid of peebert to ever post much. :)
I remember you. :)
:)
just stumbled on your blog (yeah, I follow people's links)... good reads!
-
You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
I can't find that in the bottom left - where is it?
I only see the Shop iStock links at the bottom left.
-
... or go to your portfolio, click on "Subscriptions" and the Upload lnk will appera on the left.
-
I seem to remember her asking me if I wanted a little cheese with that whine when I complained about a rejection for a different reason altogether following a resubmit of an image! Probably 2004 or 2005. She became an inspector, briefly, I think. But that was back in the days of Peebert and a somewhat more wild west atmosphere :)
:-[ Sounds like me. :D
And yeah, I was an inspector for a while. It was definitely a different place way back then. :D
I whine less now :)
Are you thinking of contributing to other stock sites?
-
Peebert...ah yes, I remember well. After hearing a few of his "special comments", I stopped visiting the IS forums regularly. Lobo took up where Peebert left off.
-
I am pretty sure they took that side navi away so that the My Uploads page would fit better in the browser (width-wise). You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
Nah, it's just a bug. They specifically put all that stuff in the left column for the redesign.
-
You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
I can't find that in the bottom left - where is it?
I only see the Shop iStock links at the bottom left.
Here's a screenshot from mine.
-
I am pretty sure they took that side navi away so that the My Uploads page would fit better in the browser (width-wise). You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
Nah, it's just a bug. They specifically put all that stuff in the left column for the redesign.
a bug, seriously?! geezus. this is getting beyond ridiculous. perhaps they need to call Terminix (http://www.terminix.com/)rather than relying on the programmers.
-
You can still get to "upload" but clicking on "My Account" in the bottom left, then click on "Contributor Tools" and it's right there. no need to go to sitemail for it.
I can't find that in the bottom left - where is it?
I only see the Shop iStock links at the bottom left.
Here's a screenshot from mine.
Tx.
I'm still not used to that fixed bar! When someone says 'bottom left' I automatically scroll right down. Brain drain (again!)
Thanks
-
I would post in Ray's thread, but I'm scared... :P
-
just stumbled on your blog (yeah, I follow people's links)... good reads!
Thank you!
I whine less now :)
:D
Are you thinking of contributing to other stock sites?
Nope, I'm getting out of stock altogether. Will take a while longer to get to the payout for DT & 123, those sites are waaaaay slow for me.
-
I would post in Ray's thread, but I'm scared... :P
oh boy.. first "yawningdog" and now "upsidedowndog" -- someone's gonna say it so it might as well be me...
Who let the dogs out?
;D
-
Niilo.. another one I've missed for your quick wit in the IS forums. yeah, I'd be scared to post in Ray's thread, too, if I were you! :)
-
Where's Ray's thread?
-
Where's Ray's thread?
in the off-topic
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422)
-
It's sure nice to see more familiar folks from the forums in Istock's glory days here on MSG. Welcome to both dogs and to Ray too :)
Sorry things have gone the way they have on Istock, though.
-
It's sure nice to see more familiar folks from the forums in Istock's glory days here on MSG....
Next think you know Peebert will be here and the world will be right again :)
And any clever clogs who is thinking of pretending to be Peebert will really have to crank up the rhetoric - Peebert made Gostwyck seem like the church lady!
-
It's sure nice to see more familiar folks from the forums in Istock's glory days here on MSG....
Next think you know Peebert will be here and the world will be right again :)
And any clever clogs who is thinking of pretending to be Peebert will really have to crank up the rhetoric - Peebert made Gostwyck seem like the church lady!
that's terrifying. I think I'm glad I never 'met' Peebert
-
It's sure nice to see more familiar folks from the forums in Istock's glory days here on MSG....
Next think you know Peebert will be here and the world will be right again :)
And any clever clogs who is thinking of pretending to be Peebert will really have to crank up the rhetoric - Peebert made Gostwyck seem like the church lady!
that's terrifying. I think I'm glad I never 'met' Peebert
ah yes, Peebert invented the BanHammer.
-
It's sure nice to see more familiar folks from the forums in Istock's glory days here on MSG....
Next think you know Peebert will be here and the world will be right again :)
And any clever clogs who is thinking of pretending to be Peebert will really have to crank up the rhetoric - Peebert made Gostwyck seem like the church lady!
LOL! I don't think anyone could make Gostwyck look like a church lady ;D
But I know what you mean. I found Peebert really intimidating, but also got some of my best laughs from reading his posts. It was kind of like watching a Friar's Club Roast or Ricky Gervais hosting the Golden Globes... you sympathize with the victim, but it was just so funny you couldn't help but laugh. ;)
-
Where's Ray's thread?
in the off-topic
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293422[/url])
Oh, ok, thanks for the link. I did see that one before.
-
So hear Pete on Pete (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=64), Pete on the joys of the holiday season (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=44945&page=1), what the wild west forums looked like - including use of heart heart unicorn rainbow - here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=44945&page=1) and here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=32641&page=2).
I just spent a bit of time wandering through old threads - not civil or G rated, but lively and lots of entertainment value. Anyone thinking about a "return" to civility in the forums perhaps isn't thinking about returning to the way the forums actually were. There's a great book about this tendency, I think called The Way we Never Were...
Edited to add one more link - Peebert on complaints from trad agencies (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=20064&messageid=250782)about how micrsostock was ruining their business.
-
So hear Pete on Pete ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=64[/url]), Pete on the joys of the holiday season ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=44945&page=1[/url]), what the wild west forums looked like - including use of heart heart unicorn rainbow - here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=44945&page=1[/url]) and here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=32641&page=2[/url]).
I just spent a bit of time wandering through old threads - not civil or G rated, but lively and lots of entertainment value. Anyone thinking about a "return" to civility in the forums perhaps isn't thinking about returning to the way the forums actually were. There's a great book about this tendency, I think called The Way we Never Were...
Edited to add one more link - Peebert on complaints from trad agencies ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=20064&messageid=250782[/url])[/url]about how micrsostock was ruining their business.
That one is priceless! I love Joe Gough's response...too funny!
-
Edited to add one more link - Peebert on complaints from trad agencies ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=20064&messageid=250782[/url])[/url]about how micrsostock was ruining their business.
That one is priceless! I love Joe Gough's response...too funny!
It certainly is priceless - but you also got to appreciate the irony about who the f*ckee was then and who it is now :P
-
Video canisters are wrong. Black diamonds with less than a 1000 dls and mine says silver but I don't think I've even hit bronze yet.
-
From Rogermexico after yesterday fix:
"Browser back button is still leading to some problems, yes - the thumbnails still aren't loading properly. They've got a follow-up fix lined up."
I started getting a little tired of it all.
-
Edited to add one more link - Peebert on complaints from trad agencies ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=20064&messageid=250782[/url])[/url]about how micrsostock was ruining their business.
That one is priceless! I love Joe Gough's response...too funny!
It certainly is priceless - but you also got to appreciate the irony about who the f*ckee was then and who it is now :P
Most definitely!
-
As a contributor, I was getting very frustrated yesterday trying to get the tool that puts images into a toolbox to work more than just a few times on a single page. Even a reload wouldn't work - had to go back and do the search again.
I can only imagine how frustrated customers must be getting. I wonder at what point they decide the frustration is no longer worth it and move on.
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1)
From the OP "This Getty inividual has apparently said you can download any istock image at thinkstock. " I hope this was a mistake not a plan for the future.
-
Anyone else notice that Shutterstock have significantly updated the design of the buyers' interface/search page recently?
Didn't think so. There was no pre-announcement weeks beforehand ... or feverish self-congratulatory posts from Admin staff ... or shrieks of delight from the faithful either. The management hardly thought it worth mentioning. It looks great and it works perfectly, just like it was supposed to.
Funnily enough there was no apparent disruption to the site either. No ever-growing list of 'bugs' and fixes; no recommendations to clear cache, delete cookies, update browsers, change browsers or change browser settings. It even still fits on one page without the absurd necessity to scroll sideways for miles. In fact no customer issues have been reported at all and all the contributors seem happy enough too.
Compare and contrast the implementation of site updates at iStockphoto and ... well, pretty much any other significant internet-based sales facility out there.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1[/url])
From the OP "This Getty inividual has apparently said you can download any istock image at thinkstock. " I hope this was a mistake not a plan for the future.
Getty employees have been known, historically, to put the knife into iStock with lies being economical with the truth, if necessary.
Like you, I hope that was just a lie.
Of course, the iStock admins will soon be on that thread to pour oil on the waters, but now we are so twitchy, we can't trust a word they say. And even if they say, it's not on our plans, that doesn't mean it won't happen next week. It isn't so long before we were firmly told that editorial wasn't in their plans (but see that forum has died out, and no-one has officially answered reasonable questions there).
It's such a mess.
-
Anyone else notice that Shutterstock have significantly updated the design of the buyers' interface/search page recently?
(snip)
Funnily enough there was no apparent disruption to the site either. No ever-growing list of 'bugs' and fixes; no recommendations to clear cache, delete cookies, update browsers, change browsers or change browser settings. It even still fits on one page without the absurd necessity to scroll sideways for miles. In fact no customer issues have been reported at all and all the contributors seem happy enough too.
Good to know. I was beginning to think that smooth, efficient site changes were an urban myth ;)
-
Good catch, Gostwyck.
That's what I love about Shutterstock - they just get on with the job and provide a smooth service with no dramas, and the sales keep coming. I wonder how they got it so right, so early?
The only thing missing is the annual pay rise ;)
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1[/url])
From the OP "This Getty inividual has apparently said you can download any istock image at thinkstock. " I hope this was a mistake not a plan for the future.
Getty employees have been known, historically, to put the knife into iStock with lies being economical with the truth, if necessary.
Like you, I hope that was just a lie.
Of course, the iStock admins will soon be on that thread to pour oil on the waters, but now we are so twitchy, we can't trust a word they say.
Surprisingly, that still hasn't happened. Maybe because there are no platitudes to offer?
This isn't the first time a Getty Rep has been caught saying something like this. Maybe they know something we don't...
-
Fotolia has changed their best match search quite radically (it doesn't favour new images at all as it used to), and they have implemented an "online since..." function. The site was down twice for about five minutes.
No fuss made.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296022&page=1[/url])
From the OP "This Getty inividual has apparently said you can download any istock image at thinkstock. " I hope this was a mistake not a plan for the future.
Getty employees have been known, historically, to put the knife into iStock with lies being economical with the truth, if necessary.
Like you, I hope that was just a lie.
Of course, the iStock admins will soon be on that thread to pour oil on the waters, but now we are so twitchy, we can't trust a word they say.
Surprisingly, that still hasn't happened. Maybe because there are no platitudes to offer?
This isn't the first time a Getty Rep has been caught saying something like this. Maybe they know something we don't...
----------------------------
I've no doubt that forcing everyone or almost everyone (not the 300 chosen) to put all their files onto TS is part of the long term plan, though I doubt very much that the random Getty sales dude is privy to such info.
Would not be surprised if the IS response is being delayed by the internal discussion of what weasel words to use in the response. Maybe JJRD saying something like "That will never happen while I'm here" kind of thing, knowing he's got his exit bonus all lined up already.
-
This just in via Twitter from an istock employee:
Join the #iStock team! We're hiring for lotsa great roles in marketing, IT, UX and more. [url]http://istockpho.to/2ZbaoB[/url] ([url]http://istockpho.to/2ZbaoB[/url]) #jobs #ycc
Maybe they're putting the royalty cut profits to good use and will hire some IT folks that can actually get the site to work properly.
-
Would not be surprised if the IS response is being delayed by the internal discussion of what weasel words to use in the response. Maybe JJRD saying something like "That will never happen while I'm here" kind of thing, knowing he's got his exit bonus all lined up already.
Not the first to say that the business looks like it is being prepared to be sold. Or maybe even for an IPO assuming the market stays high. There is so much cash sloshing around at the moment. Granted IPOs are rare now. The longer they hold on to it the more chance that something comes along and kills the agency model (which is inevitable) before they get their money. All the different brands and outlets are about making the thing look bigger than it is. Potential investors will likely not notice the broken infrastructure and under investment. As a public company there will be an squeeze on royalties unless the market can be significantly grown which it probably cannot.
-
This just in via Twitter from an istock employee:
Join the #iStock team! We're hiring for lotsa great roles in marketing, IT, UX and more. [url]http://istockpho.to/2ZbaoB[/url] ([url]http://istockpho.to/2ZbaoB[/url]) #jobs #ycc
Maybe they're putting the royalty cut profits to good use and will hire some IT folks that can actually get the site to work properly.
"Lotsa"? Ooooo, they're so hip! Maybe they'd get a better class of employee if they'd use more professional grammar to advertise for job opportunities. ::)
-
Since when is twitter a professional recruiting tool?
-
Since when is twitter a professional recruiting tool?
Exactly. Seems like they already have a bunch of people who spend their day tweeting instead of actually doing their jobs.
-
Since when is twitter a professional recruiting tool?
Exactly. Seems like they already have a bunch of people who spend their day tweeting instead of actually doing their jobs.
It's because they're so hip and trendy. ::)
-
Right about now, I could use a bit less 'hip and trendy' and a lot more business like on-the-ball IT work done.
-
Surprisingly, that still hasn't happened. Maybe because there are no platitudes to offer?
Or maybe because the thread acts as ammunition in behind-the-scenes warfare. Getty may be happy to steal $20 sales from iStock and turn them into $2 Thinkstock sales, which is a net gain for Getty, but the owners are likely to side with iStock in seeing it as a net loss.
-
Surprisingly, that still hasn't happened. Maybe because there are no platitudes to offer?
Or maybe because the thread acts as ammunition in behind-the-scenes warfare. Getty may be happy to steal $20 sales from iStock and turn them into $2 Thinkstock sales, which is a net gain for Getty, but the owners are likely to side with iStock in seeing it as a net loss.
They just locked the thread with Lobo wishing everyone a nice day.
As much as I like a good conspiracy theory, I think this was just a Getty rep who didn't know what he was talking about...
-
This just in via Twitter from an istock employee:
Join the #iStock team! We're hiring for lotsa great roles in marketing, IT, UX and more. [url]http://istockpho.to/2ZbaoB[/url] ([url]http://istockpho.to/2ZbaoB[/url]) #jobs #ycc
Maybe they're putting the royalty cut profits to good use and will hire some IT folks that can actually get the site to work properly.
or maybe it means they actually had the cajonies to fire the incompetents who caused this major epic fail of a site design roll-out.
-
From their list of benefits:
Free in-office massages at your desk from our very own masseuse.
I am actually tempted to apply... ;D
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/istock_position.php?ID=4 (http://www.istockphoto.com/istock_position.php?ID=4)
"Can you break our software?"
I think someone beat me to it
-
From their list of benefits:
Free in-office massages at your desk from our very own masseuse.
We get a pay cut and they get back rubs at the office. Nice.
-
From their list of benefits:
Free in-office massages at your desk from our very own masseuse.
We get a pay cut and they get back rubs at the office. Nice.
Look at it this way: we're both getting jerked around. And I doubt anybody's getting a happy ending.
-
Getty may be happy to steal $20 sales from iStock and turn them into $2 Thinkstock sales, which is a net gain for Getty, but the owners are likely to side with iStock in seeing it as a net loss.
Probably total spend > price per image especially now.
Minimum spend at IS is $18.50. Minimum spend at Thinkstock is $59.
IS sell 120 credits at $175 or 300 credits at $430. 1 month sub at Thinkstock = $299. Looks like a deal. Monthly subscription clients may spend more on average.
Though Shutterstock looks like better value at $249 for similar plan.
-
Ladies and gentlemen - we proudly present: The partner program fiasco:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1)
-
Ladies and gentlemen - we proudly present: The partner program fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url])
the continuing saga! (so glad I never opted in to that thing)
-
Ladies and gentlemen - we proudly present: The partner program fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url])
Wow, it seems the only thing right now that's "sustainable" over there is the continuing development of coding errors and payment delays!
-
Ladies and gentlemen - we proudly present: The partner program fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url])
To quote Andrew (Rogermexico): Any December royalties already paid out to should have been based on the royalty percentage you had at the time - your canister level then. We've had discrepancies in the first few days that have already been paid, where people were paid a lower rate based on their current (post Jan 11) iStock royalty percentage - we are tracking those down and will correct them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the first time an admin has said that PP subscription royalties will now be based on Istock RC percentages rather than canisters? Seems like a pretty big deal to just add as a side note in a thread about technical glitches.
-
Ladies and gentlemen - we proudly present: The partner program fiasco:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296742&page=1[/url])
To quote Andrew (Rogermexico): Any December royalties already paid out to should have been based on the royalty percentage you had at the time - your canister level then. We've had discrepancies in the first few days that have already been paid, where people were paid a lower rate based on their current (post Jan 11) iStock royalty percentage - we are tracking those down and will correct them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the first time an admin has said that PP subscription royalties will now be based on Istock RC percentages rather than canisters? Seems like a pretty big deal to just add as a side note in a thread about technical glitches.
I am not in the PP but just assumed that whatever your royalty percentage is, that's what your PP royalty is. So why wouldn't it change then with the upheaval and switch to RC royalty calculation? or did they specifically say the PP would be based on canisters still or did they just never say? (until now, of course)
not trying to emphasize one over the other, just wondering.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the first time an admin has said that PP subscription royalties will now be based on Istock RC percentages rather than canisters? Seems like a pretty big deal to just add as a side note in a thread about technical glitches.
I am not in the PP but just assumed that whatever your royalty percentage is, that's what your PP royalty is. So why wouldn't it change then with the upheaval and switch to RC royalty calculation? or did they specifically say the PP would be based on canisters still or did they just never say? (until now, of course)
The thing is that they don't count PP downloads towards your iStock RCs because "they're not iStock downloads", and now, apparently unannounced, they're using your iStock downloads to calculate your PP cents-per-download. Previously, if exclusive, the cents-per-download was based on your canister.
AKA having their cake and eating it.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the first time an admin has said that PP subscription royalties will now be based on Istock RC percentages rather than canisters? Seems like a pretty big deal to just add as a side note in a thread about technical glitches.
I am not in the PP but just assumed that whatever your royalty percentage is, that's what your PP royalty is. So why wouldn't it change then with the upheaval and switch to RC royalty calculation? or did they specifically say the PP would be based on canisters still or did they just never say? (until now, of course)
The thing is that they don't count PP downloads towards your iStock RCs because "they're not iStock downloads", and now, apparently unannounced, they're using your iStock downloads to calculate your PP cents-per-download. Previously, if exclusivw, the cents-per-download was based on your canister.
AKA having their cake and eating it.
ah yes. And it appears that it never has been a "fair" deal in the first place since the PP downloads also never counted towards your canister either, correct? so they are just continuing the shite-storm on contributors.
-
I just have to wonder how long this mess will go on before iStock implodes or falls apart completely. I can't understand how they've managed to stay in business this long! Getty is taking a serious gamble here. And I hate them.
-
I had understood that they specifically excluded the partner program from having any connection with the new levels. I can't remember why I thought that, but I was quite convinced of it.
-
This post, part of a far longer one in the 'Should we upload or not?' thread, was allowed to remain far longer than normal but has now , not surprisingly, been removed. The last line is a killer! (posted by borchee, who was the OP)
I believe there should always be 2 priorities: for customers...so that they can buy images and for contributors to get fair treatment and fair competition.
I don't give a fffff about missing left column, missing portfolio link, 2010 payout callendar...
This double canister ignorance is insulting. It started AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH and still nothing. I have more than 20 images infected (and 20 more from Christmas). I have 100 more images to upload. Was carefully planning when to upload. Working whole autumn and winter. My only income is from iStock. Some files are getting buried. Competition is not fair. Some are searchable some are not. You can not even suggest me to stop uploading. Do you guys have a single deadline? If not...I know you have some experiences how long something takes from the phase 'we are looking into' -> 'they are working on it' to 'finally fixed'? Just say something, please. Something true.
Thanks for all the royalties... but It's not fair. I'm tired of this crap and I hate you.
-
^^^ That post has not been removed or the thread locked (at least at the moment). It's here;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296062&page=4 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=296062&page=4)
-
What is with this double canister bug? Was this part of the "fix" that they rolled out a week or so ago? I see the "newly reported problems" list keeps getting longer. Heads really should be rolling over there.
-
NO search results at all via FF and Chrome:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298222&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298222&page=1)
Also 'view portfolio' not working.
Plus I've just tried 'horse' on IE and got nothing.
Added: working again, so 'only' about half an hour down.
-
Seems to be back up now.
-
But with portfolio's backdated to 2 days ago so my new images have now disappeared ???
-
"iStockphoto: Still the #1 Microstock Agency (in site bugginess)"
-
"iStockphoto: Still the #1 Microstock Agency (in site bugginess)"
seriously. this is really getting out of control. just when I thought things were starting to settle down and work as they are supposed to.
-
just when I thought things were starting to settle down and work as they are supposed to.
That was your first mistake ;)
-
just when I thought things were starting to settle down and work as they are supposed to.
That was your first mistake ;)
*sigh*
you got that right.
-
I'm thinking about contacting Warren Hellman to ask if he knows that a bunch of fools are running his company.
-
I thought it was his instructions that were causing the problems. More profit, squeeze everybody.
-
I thought it was his instructions that were causing the problems. More profit, squeeze everybody.
That's what I'm assuming, though either Kelly or JJ said not.
-
I thought it was his instructions that were causing the problems. More profit, squeeze everybody.
That's what I'm assuming, though either Kelly or JJ said not.
What else are they going to say?
I have been lied to right to my face by corporate leaders in the past.
Different business same tactics.
I now take anything said by TPTB with a large grain of salt.
-
I thought it was his instructions that were causing the problems. More profit, squeeze everybody.
That's what I'm assuming, though either Kelly or JJ said not.
What else are they going to say?
I have been lied to right to my face by corporate leaders in the past.
Different business same tactics.
I now take anything said by TPTB with a large grain of salt.
Absolutely; but it did seem odd that they were shouldering the blame when they could have said nothing.
But like you say, large grain of salt with everything.
-
Warren Hellman may have said 'maximise profits', I don't think he said 're-design the site so it doesn't work properly then fail to fix it for weeks on end'.
-
If you're squeezing everything, you reduce the staff, refuse to pay overtime, the staff have too much to do, lose motivation, don't work late or at weekends, and of course they can't say anything. Sound familiar?
-
If that is the case then that's also bad management. If you're trying to maximise profits what is happening at IS is not the way to do it. Squeeze contributors, OK, but at least have a smoothly functioning site to maximise sales. IS has always had tech problems since I've been a contributor, it's just that these feel worse at the moment.
-
If that is the case then that's also bad management. If you're trying to maximise profits what is happening at IS is not the way to do it. Squeeze contributors, OK, but at least have a smoothly functioning site to maximise sales. IS has always had tech problems since I've been a contributor, it's just that these feel worse at the moment.
these are the worse I've seen since the 7 years I've been with iStock. worse in terms that they have gone on and on gong on what, several months now? I lost track.
-
I haven't been with IS quite that long (just over 6 years) but I'd agree that this is by far the worst mess that site operations have been in.
I don't know if this is just all the cumulative past problems mounting up - you can only patch unstable old code for so long - or whether it's personnel problems, or outsourcing (to Getty or overseas) with poor communication.
As long as they get things functional, I'm not sure I need to care. Idle curiosity and a wish to estimate the likely time before it's all fixed mean I would like to know.
-
It does seem more epic and across the board than anything I've seen before. They really crushed my income with a few of the best match shake ups but it always seemed like some other contributor was a winner there. This seems more global in its swath of damage, I don't know if it is even helping their bottom line, especially not in the long run.
-
I haven't been with IS quite that long (just over 6 years) but I'd agree that this is by far the worst mess that site operations have been in.
I don't know if this is just all the cumulative past problems mounting up - you can only patch unstable old code for so long - or whether it's personnel problems, or outsourcing (to Getty or overseas) with poor communication.
As long as they get things functional, I'm not sure I need to care. Idle curiosity and a wish to estimate the likely time before it's all fixed mean I would like to know.
I was under the impression that the old code was the old site. F5 was built brand new, using different code. No?
-
I was under the impression that the old code was the old site. F5 was built brand new, using different code. No?
I know a lot of things were new, but I don't think they ever said all the code was new. A lot of the UI changed, but I'll bet that not all of the back end functions did. It's always tempting to use the old stuff, particularly when you run into time constraints.
They're clearly struggling. I doubt they'll ever say publicly what the reasons are.
-
I was under the impression that the old code was the old site. F5 was built brand new, using different code. No?
I know a lot of things were new, but I don't think they ever said all the code was new. A lot of the UI changed, but I'll bet that not all of the back end functions did. It's always tempting to use the old stuff, particularly when you run into time constraints.
They're clearly struggling. I doubt they'll ever say publicly what the reasons are.
Yeah. The funny thing is, THEY say the old site had problems, and I know there were times when they were down, but compared to F5... ???
-
Oh look. They are accepting submissions for editorial, with the expectation to launch in a few weeks. You can bet I'll be settling in with popcorn to watch the latest F5 chaos. :D
-
okay, time to add to this list. there's a "blank page" issue going on with the site. i can only imagine a buyer experiencing this annoyance!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300722&page=2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300722&page=2)
-
okay, time to add to this list. there's a "blank page" issue going on with the site. i can only imagine a buyer experiencing this annoyance!
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300722&page=2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300722&page=2[/url])
I can't believe how long the list of bugs is. Pathetic.
-
They are a bunch of incompetent fools I'm afraid. Hate to say it, because my income is in their hands at the moment, but a complete bunch of bumbling idiots. The site problems have been dragging on now for nearly 2 months and there are just as many bugs as when it started, many of them the same old ones that just constantly recur.
-
so I sent a twitter message to @istock and they told me the blank pages (which appear to be fixed now) were caused by server issues:
@JamiRae we had some bunk web servers. We've taken them offline. Should be fine now, but let me know if it persists
So I replied stating that I thought they had just gotten a bunch of new servers. (Didn't they? I mean, really if the hardware provider gave them junk, they should definitely be holding someone's butt to the fire. )
the reply to that was
@JamiRae we have A LOT of hardware. Statistically, some of them are bound to blow up from time to time.
okay, I didn't bother replying there because didn't think it warranted a back and forth after that.
But I'm thinking, again, "What Would Amazon Do?" seriously, they have tons of servers and I can't remember the last time I went there and there was a technical glitch with the site. And I am an Amazon regular. A multi-million dollar company like iStock certainly should have backups and rollovers so that anytime something happens a backup server can quickly take over. I sure wish they would use that 85% they are collecting off most sales and invest in TECHNICIANS who are experienced and knowledgeable in these things.
-
But I'm thinking, again, "What Would Amazon Do?" seriously, they have tons of servers and I can't remember the last time I went there and there was a technical glitch with the site. And I am an Amazon regular. A multi-million dollar company like iStock certainly should have backups and rollovers so that anytime something happens a backup server can quickly take over. I sure wish they would use that 85% they are collecting off most sales and invest in TECHNICIANS who are experienced and knowledgeable in these things.
Do Istockphoto ever, ever, ever think "What Would Amazon Do?"? The way they operate their website I'm not even sure that they've heard of Amazon let alone actually used them. I might send them an Amazon gift voucher for a copy of "Websites for Dummies" to confuse their 'development team' That's a bit of a misnomer as development usually refers to things getting better rather than continuously worse.
-
But I'm thinking, again, "What Would Amazon Do?" seriously, they have tons of servers and I can't remember the last time I went there and there was a technical glitch with the site. And I am an Amazon regular. A multi-million dollar company like iStock certainly should have backups and rollovers so that anytime something happens a backup server can quickly take over. I sure wish they would use that 85% they are collecting off most sales and invest in TECHNICIANS who are experienced and knowledgeable in these things.
Do Istockphoto ever, ever, ever think "What Would Amazon Do?"? The way they operate their website I'm not even sure that they've heard of Amazon let alone actually used them. I might send them an Amazon gift voucher for a copy of "Websites for Dummies" to confuse their 'development team' That's a bit of a misnomer as development usually refers to things getting better rather than continuously worse.
hahahaahaha! ROTFLMAO! ;D
-
I've also recommended in emails and support requests, that the developers should be made to read, "Don't Make Me Think", as they have no idea about Site Usability 101. If they had, they'd have designed their editorial upload page with fields in the order they wanted the information.
-
Did anyone else see this post in the Independence Day forum that Brigit (StockCube) has? Apparently there is a backlog and people who have cancelled their IS exclusivity have been waiting OVER the 30 day mark? some are at 45 days and counting and IS has not changed their status yet.
http://the-independence-day-forum.983074.n3.nabble.com/iStock-mucks-up-the-works-td2444013.html (http://the-independence-day-forum.983074.n3.nabble.com/iStock-mucks-up-the-works-td2444013.html)
-
Did anyone else see this post in the Independence Day forum that Brigit (StockCube) has? Apparently there is a backlog and people who have cancelled their IS exclusivity have been waiting OVER the 30 day mark? some are at 45 days and counting and IS has not changed their status yet.
[url]http://the-independence-day-forum.983074.n3.nabble.com/iStock-mucks-up-the-works-td2444013.html[/url] ([url]http://the-independence-day-forum.983074.n3.nabble.com/iStock-mucks-up-the-works-td2444013.html[/url])
OMG!! Sorry, but I question whether this is really a backlog. I certainly don't doubt that there are a ton of people wanting to drop the crown, but hard to believe this is not an automated process.
Is there a thread about it on the Istock forums? Can't seem to find one... :-X
-
This is total BS!!!! They are in violation of the terms of their own agreement with serious harm to contributors seeking to sell their images elsewhere. I would be flipping out if it were me!
-
I certainly wouldnt be concerned with their backlog. The ASA says you may terminate the agreement by your action. There is nothing about them pushing a button or anything.
"This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement with respect to the whole (but not part of) one or more of Photo Content, Illustration Content, Flash Content or Motion Content at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice specifying the category or categories of Exclusive Content to which termination applies to iStockphoto using [[email protected]] or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStockphoto which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate."
If they have a problem, it's their fault because they are not fulfilling their agreement. IMO.
-
I certainly wouldnt be concerned with their backlog. The ASA says you may terminate the agreement by your action. There is nothing about them pushing a button or anything.
"This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement with respect to the whole (but not part of) one or more of Photo Content, Illustration Content, Flash Content or Motion Content at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice specifying the category or categories of Exclusive Content to which termination applies to iStockphoto using [[email protected]] or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStockphoto which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate."
If they have a problem, it's their fault because they are not fulfilling their agreement. IMO.
Absolutely. If they continue to pay you as an exclusive then that's their problem. Upload away and enjoy the extra income.
-
Seems there's a bug with the logos uploads now. Hard to believe people are still uploading logos with the epic fail that program is.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300472&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300472&page=1)
-
Yeah, I wonder why they don't just kill it off and be done with it, whatever the problems were.
-
Yeah, I wonder why they don't just kill it off and be done with it, whatever the problems were.
Wouldn't that be considered an admission of guilt (or failure)?
Something iStock doesn't want to be involved with (officially).
-
Yeah, I wonder why they don't just kill it off and be done with it, whatever the problems were.
Wouldn't that be considered an admission of guilt (or failure)?
Something iStock doesn't want to be involved with (officially).
in the past they have killed a few other ventures that failed: istockpro and BuyRequest. so I could see it happening.
-
Yeah, I wonder why they don't just kill it off and be done with it, whatever the problems were.
I'm told they planned to launch with 10,000 logo's and they don't even have half that. I'm amazed anyone is actually bothering to upload still as it's about 15 months behind schedule on the launch date.
-
Yeah, I wonder why they don't just kill it off and be done with it, whatever the problems were.
I'm told they planned to launch with 10,000 logo's and they don't even have half that. I'm amazed anyone is actually bothering to upload still as it's about 15 months behind schedule on the launch date.
I guess they shouldn't have been so hasty to reject people's applications back in the beginning. :D
Joking aside, it'll be too bad for the contributors if the program never gets launched. Logos, even "fake" ones, take quite a while to design. And from the little bit that we've seen, there are some really great illustrations in there. Would be a shame if all the time people put into it goes to waste. I hope they get a different venue to sell their stuff if the program doesn't ever launch.
-
I had 25 logos accepted from Nov 2009 (yes that's 2009) through Jan 2010. Sadly I think the $5 bonus is the only money I will make from my efforts. I am very disappointed that the program is stalled. Yet IS still continues with the "coming soon, working on it" BS. Nobody even cares anymore. The logo forum is deserted and the same 5 people post logos in the challenges. It makes me sad, but I have given up the ghost and resign myself to the fact that it is dead, it's just that no one has informed the corpse.
-
the same 5 people post logos in the challenges.
Yeah, and one of them is an iStock administrator. LOL
-
Oh dear. The big party in London that they announced a few days ago ... has sort of been 'un-announced' and the thread locked;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=302622&page=4 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=302622&page=4)
Apparently something might be happening sometime and somewhere but they don't want to commit to anything just yet.
-
Oh dear. The big party in London that they announced a few days ago ... has sort of been 'un-announced' and the thread locked;
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=302622&page=4[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=302622&page=4[/url])
Apparently something might be happening sometime and somewhere but they don't want to commit to anything just yet.
To be fair, I don't think 'they' announced it.
If you look at the link which someone - NOT an admin - found and posted, it seems to be, for some reason, some event which is open to the general public, but following on from the OP, people were jumping onto it as if it was going to be a standard 'lypse, which it clearly isn't. Note the OP didn't announce it as a 'lypse. So JJRD locked the thread to avoid expections from spiralling.
I don't think this belongs in the 'epic fail' thread: there's more than enough really in that category.
-
Not really an epic fail here or anything, more of an annoyance, but I don't want to start a new thread on it. Pink Cotton Candy has started a thread on revamping PTOTW and, I know she means well and it's essentially her idea, but it always sticks in my craw when multi-million dollar companies ask for free design work. The relevant part:
In an effort to get the buying public involved: what about asking them to design the headers for each week? I can totally provide a credit + a link to their website. I would set specific guidelines (size, etc.). I realize it might take a while for it to catch on and I will create the headers in the meantime. Buyers, what do you think of this? Is this work for free? yes, of course it is...but maybe it's fun if you know the parameters?
They should at least offer people some free credits for it or something. "Credit and a link to their website"? I'll get right on it. LOL
Stuff it, iStock.
-
To be fair, I don't think 'they' announced it.
If you look at the link which someone - NOT an admin - found and posted, it seems to be, for some reason, some event which is open to the general public, but following on from the OP, people were jumping onto it as if it was going to be a standard 'lypse, which it clearly isn't. Note the OP didn't announce it as a 'lypse. So JJRD locked the thread to avoid expections from spiralling.
I don't think this belongs in the 'epic fail' thread: there's more than enough really in that category.
If it wasn't 'announced' how did it get to appear on the WPO website? No less than 12 admins and inspectors joined in the wooyay chorus <feigned surprise> and it has taken them 2 days to decide to lock the thread without providing any further info.
-
To be fair, I don't think 'they' announced it.
If you look at the link which someone - NOT an admin - found and posted, it seems to be, for some reason, some event which is open to the general public, but following on from the OP, people were jumping onto it as if it was going to be a standard 'lypse, which it clearly isn't. Note the OP didn't announce it as a 'lypse. So JJRD locked the thread to avoid expections from spiralling.
I don't think this belongs in the 'epic fail' thread: there's more than enough really in that category.
If it wasn't 'announced' how did it get to appear on the WPO website? No less than 12 admins and inspectors joined in the wooyay chorus <feigned surprise> and it has taken them 2 days to decide to lock the thread without providing any further info.
I meant that it wasn't officially announced on the forums by an admin. Someone found it on the WPO site, and others, without reading the WPO site carefully, thought it was a 'lypse so got excited about it.
I have no idea of what the purpose of having free tutorials about using lights and models for the general public is. Trying to flush out some naturally talented contributors? Gosh, even I got excited for a few moments, as I've never really used lights or had models, until I noticed first of all the bit about the general public, and secondly thought about the cost of accommodation in London at that time.
-
I think we should add PTOTW epic fail...
In the forums they ask to brainstorm along about a new way of doing it; the massive consensus is 'leave it as it is; istock controls too much already as it is", the opinions didnt matter, they're going to do how they feel it should be done anyways.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1)
-
I think we should add PTOTW epic fail...
In the forums they ask to brainstorm along about a new way of doing it; the massive consensus is 'leave it as it is; istock controls too much already as it is", the opinions didnt matter, they're going to do how they feel it should be done anyways.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1[/url])
Yes, I think it's an epic fail too. I also like how they were initially asking buyers to design something for free. Eff that. They aren't happy with how much they are already taking form buyers? And the designer gets credit and a link to their website. Oooo. Sign me up. Not. Offering free credits in the form of payment would have been at least a little more appealing.
I don't know why they bother to ask anyone for ideas though, if they were just going to implement something regardless of the consensus. :/
-
I think we should add PTOTW epic fail...
In the forums they ask to brainstorm along about a new way of doing it; the massive consensus is 'leave it as it is; istock controls too much already as it is", the opinions didnt matter, they're going to do how they feel it should be done anyways.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1[/url])
Who cares? The PTOTW is only for hobbists with too much time on their hands anyway. I can't imagine why anyone would even bother to click on such a thread, much less actually participate. Life is simply too short for such nonsense.
-
I think we should add PTOTW epic fail...
In the forums they ask to brainstorm along about a new way of doing it; the massive consensus is 'leave it as it is; istock controls too much already as it is", the opinions didnt matter, they're going to do how they feel it should be done anyways.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=304702&page=1[/url])
Who cares? The PTOTW is only for hobbists with too much time on their hands anyway. I can't imagine why anyone would even bother to click on such a thread, much less actually participate. Life is simply too short for such nonsense.
I'm with you. the PTOTW is for photographers to pimp their work. do buyers really go in there? I mean buyers other than the contributors who like to join in on the PTOTW? I have gone in there a few times in the past but never got any sales from it. it's a fun place to socialize and show off your work to other contributors but I am not so sure how advantageous it is for sales.
-
I'm with you. the PTOTW is for photographers to pimp their work. do buyers really go in there? I mean buyers other than the contributors who like to join in on the PTOTW? I have gone in there a few times in the past but never got any sales from it. it's a fun place to socialize and show off your work to other contributors but I am not so sure how advantageous it is for sales.
I've never looked at the pimping threads.
I find the new rules difficult follow? Has it turned into a once a month thing? How can it be weekly if the themes are posted on the first Friday of the month and the pimping thread is on the last Friday of the month?
-
I'm with you. the PTOTW is for photographers to pimp their work. do buyers really go in there? I mean buyers other than the contributors who like to join in on the PTOTW? I have gone in there a few times in the past but never got any sales from it. it's a fun place to socialize and show off your work to other contributors but I am not so sure how advantageous it is for sales.
I've never looked at the pimping threads.
I find the new rules difficult follow? Has it turned into a once a month thing? How can it be weekly if the themes are posted on the first Friday of the month and the pimping thread is on the last Friday of the month?
too many rules. it has been killed.
-
Yeah, I wonder why they don't just kill it off and be done with it, whatever the problems were.
I'm told they planned to launch with 10,000 logo's and they don't even have half that. I'm amazed anyone is actually bothering to upload still as it's about 15 months behind schedule on the launch date.
This is interesting since today they said they planned to launch editorial with 5k files. Why so many for logos?
-
Yeah, I wonder why they don't just kill it off and be done with it, whatever the problems were.
I'm told they planned to launch with 10,000 logo's and they don't even have half that. I'm amazed anyone is actually bothering to upload still as it's about 15 months behind schedule on the launch date.
This is interesting since today they said they planned to launch editorial with 5k files. Why so many for logos?
logos are a different monster as they are a one time sale and then they are gone. with the editorial it's like the rest of the images - they are for sale over and over again.
-
Maybe if they actually launched it and it was a success, more people would bother contributing!
-
Maybe if they actually launched it and it was a success, more people would bother contributing!
too true!
-
Maybe if they actually launched it and it was a success, more people would bother contributing!
too true!
True that.
I have given up the ghost on this. Sad.
-
OMG, it is surely long thread to read. :D
I've been in microstock since early 2008, 3 year for me to be in this.
Istock was a promising stock sites that time. for the last 2 years, i can even predict my growth, like ebb and flow keep repeating, but suddenly this last 2 month things get worst.
It's not only the commission goes down even the download goes down like cut in half, while on other sites I got rapid growth in income, it is like buyers moving on from istock to other stock sites.
Plus the whole bugs like that, i can't even imagine they keep doing business with the whole mess up on their sites
Wow, I thought after iStock being under Getty, their website gonna be better. But it really like a sites full of trouble and problem. I don't know how about their credibility in the eyes of buyers.
pppffff, I just want to say that I am really disappointing with iStock ( it crossed on my mind half year ago to jump in their exclusivity, that makes me relieve that I didn't do it that time )
-
Here's another fail on the part of iStock...the Designer Spotlight. No longer do they seem to be updating it, but the current DOTW is three years old. And if you click on the link for the design, the website that the design is supposedly made for doesn't even exist anymore.
They really should just get rid of that part of the site anyway. It's a mere specter of what it once was. Just another indication of how little iStock cares about its buyers.
-
Can't change your Paypal account or they refuse to pay you fail.
I changed my paypal account info and tried to request a payment last week. They form gave me an error that my paypal account wasn't "confirmed". I can't send it to the old address as Paypal has the new one. Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
-
Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
OMG.
-
Can't change your Paypal account or they refuse to pay you fail.
I changed my paypal account info and tried to request a payment last week. They form gave me an error that my paypal account wasn't "confirmed". I can't send it to the old address as Paypal has the new one. Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
So they didn't give you any information on how to go about confirming? Is that something you can do over at Paypal? I seem to remember something about that, but I have had my Paypal account for so long. I know that when I linked it to my bank account, they also confirmed that by subtracting a small amount of money, like $.19, just to confirm everything was ok.
-
Everything is fine on Paypal's end. Other sites have paid me at the new address without an issue. I didn't think this would be an issue at IS because IS requires you to type in your paypal account email everytime you request a payment. At some point they made of note of who uses what email account for their payments and since I entered the new one it caused an error on the page with no ability to change it.
And no CS has not gotten around to answering my questions as to how to fix the problem.
-
Everything is fine on Paypal's end. Other sites have paid me at the new address without an issue. I didn't think this would be an issue at IS because IS requires you to type in your paypal account email everytime you request a payment. At some point they made of note of who uses what email account for their payments and since I entered the new one it caused an error on the page with no ability to change it.
And no CanStock has not gotten around to answering my questions as to how to fix the problem.
I agree, since you have to type your paypal account email every time, seems like it wouldn't be an issue. Maybe all this came about because of the fraud? In any case, I hope you get it straightened out.
-
Can't change your Paypal account or they refuse to pay you fail.
I changed my paypal account info and tried to request a payment last week. They form gave me an error that my paypal account wasn't "confirmed". I can't send it to the old address as Paypal has the new one. Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
You need to contact PayPal support about confirming your address, not iStock. Look in the PayPal help files: https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/helpweb?cmd=_help (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/helpweb?cmd=_help)
If you just need to confirm your email address then look here: https://www.paypal.com/helpcenter/main.jsp?t=solutionTab&ft=homeTab&ps=&solutionId=12757&locale=en_US&_dyncharset=UTF-8&countrycode=US&cmd=_help&m=BT (https://www.paypal.com/helpcenter/main.jsp?t=solutionTab&ft=homeTab&ps=&solutionId=12757&locale=en_US&_dyncharset=UTF-8&countrycode=US&cmd=_help&m=BT)
-
Can't change your Paypal account or they refuse to pay you fail.
I changed my paypal account info and tried to request a payment last week. They form gave me an error that my paypal account wasn't "confirmed". I can't send it to the old address as Paypal has the new one. Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
They seem to be swamped under at the moment. I've got an open Support ticket since 7th Feb. They do tend to 'disappear', though, so keep an eye on your open tickets list.
-
Jen I have already confirmed the account with Paypal. Other agencies have paid me at the new email address without a problem. On the IS payment page is were I get the error. It's an IS issue, not Paypal's.
-
Oh. Well, then you should call them!
-
Mr. Thompson must write a book called "How to destroy a great business in six months"
-
I emailed paypal to change my bank account info. They told me to contact Istock. I contacted Istock, they said its paypal's problem. I wrote istock back telling them that Paypal said I needed to contact them. They never wrote me back. about 6 months ago.
-
IS finally replied. They told me to delete my cache and try again. I gave it another go and the request appears to have gone through. Of course now I have to wait 2 weeks to see if really did or not, since their error caused me to miss the deadline.
-
IS finally replied. They told me to delete my cache and try again. I gave it another go and the request appears to have gone through. Of course now I have to wait 2 weeks to see if really did or not, since their error caused me to miss the deadline.
Due to today being a Canadian holiday, the payment deadline is tomorrow, 9am MST:
http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/PayoutSchedule_2011.pdf (http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/PayoutSchedule_2011.pdf)
:)
-
OMFG, another bug: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=306382&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=306382&page=1)
Unreal.
-
OMFG, another bug: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=306382&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=306382&page=1[/url])
Unreal.
somehow nothing seems to surprise me anymore. sad.
-
more unhappy buyers
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307152&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307152&page=1)
"snow and race not ski... no results"
Second buyer same complaint
"Another buyer here that is more than a little frustrated with the search. It's been ages since the new search was rolled out, untested it seems, for countless bugs and issues that one day of actual buyer use found. I went away for awhile and came back with a mid-sized project the other day to find that none of the search issues I had originally ran into had changed, in fact some were worse.
Limiting the number of search words is more than a little annoying and the "drilling down" that is supposed to garner better results was either giving me no results or the same number i had before drilling down. Adding to that, you still can't use some of the functions such as color space and the ability to exclude certain collections that were in the OLD search is telling me that iStock doesn't really care about buyer experience in using their product.
I have done this particular project each year for the last several years and the search process normally takes me about an hour to find 20 to 30 photos to comp. This year... almost 3 hours. My time is valuable too. I can't justify billing my client for an additional 3 hours of design time when it's solely spent trying to find the correct images because the company I am using has a screwed up search. So in the end, I end up eating that expense.
And just for iStock's info...most buyers don't visit the forums. They don't spend hours trudging through threads trying to find that one trick that is going to make the search work, they don't know that the company is working feverishly to fix it, they don't know that this isn't just the way the search is going to be from now on."
-
I do not know why iStock still seems to think it's okay for the search to be explained.
From rogermexico: Once we have a better system then yes, putting search tips in that monthly tip or the contact sheets is a good idea.
No, it's not a good idea. Buyers don't want to have to figure out the search nor do they want to have to read about search tips. They just want to be able to type words in and find the relevant results. Period.
Though they do want to be able to search by price point or collection. And photo orientation is nice as well. But to have to constantly fiddle with keywords to get results is so stupid.
-
Can I get a woo-yay?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307412&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307412&page=1)
-
More than one!
-
more collections for istock/getty to take even more of a cut that will be shown in front of regular exclusive collection, which is in front of most independent files. * definitely no love for the independents on istock.
-
Doubt they'll be getting too many Woo-Yays from buyers either. Oh look! More files that used to sell at the old prices arbitrarily being priced higher.
-
Doubt they'll be getting too many Woo-Yays from buyers either. Oh look! More files that used to sell at the old prices arbitrarily being priced higher.
Lots and lots of woo-yays from admins and inspectors though. It's like a display of synchronised arse-licking.
-
Doubt they'll be getting too many Woo-Yays from buyers either. Oh look! More files that used to sell at the old prices arbitrarily being priced higher.
Lots and lots of woo-yays from admins and inspectors though. It's like a display of synchronised arse-licking.
:D I noticed that as well.
-
Lots and lots of woo-yays from admins and inspectors though.
Seems that folks on the payroll are the only ones who can muster much enthusiasm for anything over there these days.
-
Lots and lots of woo-yays from admins and inspectors though.
Seems that folks on the payroll are the only ones who can muster much enthusiasm for anything over there these days.
I predict the "buyers bailing on istock" thread will have a growth spurt once this goes into effect.
-
Uh oh. Not a woo-yayer:
Can someone at IS please explain the maths behind the announced combination of increased prices and decreased royalties.
For a video contributor who currently gets 40%, a Vetta HD720 download will actually give them a lower royalty payment than for the main collection.
Looks like people might want to think before they woo-yay.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307412&page=2#post5926622 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307412&page=2#post5926622)
-
Wow, things just keep getting worse at iStock... can't say it's not entertaining to see stuff fall apart so horribly, though :D
-
I feel a bit sick. All those wooyays are hard to stomach before breakfast!
It is incredible to think that they have been putting resources into this that could have been better used to fix the site.
They are not going to sell much if the buyers cannot find anything.
-
Exactly, and imagine it's all from yours money, my money, all of us pays for this ::)
I wonder how they still keep the great fame and prestige...
In my list they're getting down total. Feels like wasting my time with them...
-
Joke of the week from JJRD:
"We are moving towards a glitch-free world... and we will get there."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=1#reply (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=1#reply)
Followed by - what? sick joke of the week? - from JJRD:
Posted By JJRD:
The day iStock and or Getty Images disappoint me & my passion for sharing Digital Media, I will be out the door faster than a speeding bullet.
[dcdp says: So what you're saying is that nothing iStock has done in the past 6 months has disappointed you.
I think that tells me everything I need to know about where you stand.]
JJRD replies: You may think what you want.
I know what we are doing, what we are fighting for and where we stand in our global objectives, and I stand behind them."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=4#reply (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=4#reply)
It seems the Company could never disappoint the Company Man.
-
^^^I like the old saying, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"
-
Whole iS is one great joke lately...
-
Joke of the week from JJRD:
Posted By JJRD:
The day iStock and or Getty Images disappoint me & my passion for sharing Digital Media, I will be out the door faster than a speeding bullet.
[dcdp says: So what you're saying is that nothing iStock has done in the past 6 months has disappointed you.
I think that tells me everything I need to know about where you stand.]
JJRD replies: You may think what you want.
I know what we are doing, what we are fighting for and where we stand in our global objectives, and I stand behind them."
Clearly he's lying. If he agreed with everything, why should there be any need for "fighting"? Why should he have to thank KK for "fighting"? I see he also thanked someone for a "battle" in the Vector Vetta thread.
So again I ask, if iStock has done nothing to "disappoint" why the need for battles?
-
Honestly, what else do you expect him to say?? HE WORKS FOR THE COMPANY. I cant believe anyone can be naive enough to trust whatever that comes out from anyones mouth. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. hes thanking KK for fighting... .translation, istock has no real control on what goes on istock and has to obey its master GETTY whos master is HF.
The only guy that did something about it was the one with the kool aid icon. and he took his kool aid icon out. lol
-
... Sent a message to support asking how to fix it but all I got was the auto "Thanks for emailing us".
Wow.
All I can say is, we really, really, really need some new agencies to start getting some traction and making sales.
-
Honestly, what else do you expect him to say?? HE WORKS FOR THE COMPANY. I cant believe anyone can be naive enough to trust whatever that comes out from anyones mouth. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. hes thanking KK for fighting... .translation, istock has no real control on what goes on istock and has to obey its master GETTY whos master is HF.
The only guy that did something about it was the one with the kool aid icon. and he took his kool aid icon out. lol
Yes, of course he has to tow the company line. But I just find his contradictions interesting. And very telling!
I noticed that about the Kool-Aid icon too. Funny.
-
It amazes me that they still say "trust us" after all the crap they have done the past months to totally screw contrubutors. Trust is something that is earned. They have done little to earn trust these days.
-
Joke of the week from JJRD:
Posted By JJRD:
The day iStock and or Getty Images disappoint me & my passion for sharing Digital Media, I will be out the door faster than a speeding bullet.
[dcdp says: So what you're saying is that nothing iStock has done in the past 6 months has disappointed you.
I think that tells me everything I need to know about where you stand.]
JJRD replies: You may think what you want.
I know what we are doing, what we are fighting for and where we stand in our global objectives, and I stand behind them."
Clearly he's lying. If he agreed with everything, why should there be any need for "fighting"? Why should he have to thank KK for "fighting"? I see he also thanked someone for a "battle" in the Vector Vetta thread.
So again I ask, if iStock has done nothing to "disappoint" why the need for battles?
Sometimes I think he is self-delusional like he really believes that what he's doing is good for contributors and could make a good argument to himself as to why cutting my commissions by 25% is in my interests.
Listening to him go on about all the meetings he has and how busy he is running his massive team, sounds to me like shortly he will realize he wants to spend more time with his family and step down from his role.
-
Sometimes I think he is self-delusional like he really believes that what he's doing is good for contributors and could make a good argument to himself as to why cutting my commissions by 25% is in my interests.
Listening to him go on about all the meetings he has and how busy he is running his massive team, sounds to me like shortly he will realize he wants to spend more time with his family and step down from his role.
self-delusional = company man = big $$$ = more time with family = nice big golden parachute
-
It amazes me that they still say "trust us" after all the crap they have done the past months to totally screw contrubutors. Trust is something that is earned. They have done little to earn trust these days.
It seems they think these new offerings in and of themselves - e.g., Vetta for illustrations and videos - are, should be, or will be enough to earn back trust.
It seems they are as out of touch as ever :D
-
Clearly he's lying. If he agreed with everything, why should there be any need for "fighting"? Why should he have to thank KK for "fighting"? I see he also thanked someone for a "battle" in the Vector Vetta thread.
So again I ask, if iStock has done nothing to "disappoint" why the need for battles?
LOL, neat point. Perhaps he always wins the battles, so all in the garden is rosy.
The thing that is so awful is not that he continues as a front man for the organisation but that he repeatedly presents himself as the superhero fighting for the masses, who is always ready to fall on his sword for the common good. It sounds like a kid who hides in a cupboard from the school bully and then comes out and tells the class that the bully wouldn't dare take him on. Is there a technical term for that behaviour?
-
Clearly he's lying. If he agreed with everything, why should there be any need for "fighting"? Why should he have to thank KK for "fighting"? I see he also thanked someone for a "battle" in the Vector Vetta thread.
So again I ask, if iStock has done nothing to "disappoint" why the need for battles?
Surely in any business (except one-person - maybe), there will always be 'robust discussion' until some agreement/compromise/solution can be found?
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307802&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307802&page=1)
Looks like another problem, IS introduces Vetta for video which results in an actual paycut for diamond contributors at 720p.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307802&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307802&page=1[/url])
Looks like another problem, IS introduces Vetta for video which results in an actual paycut for diamond contributors at 720p.
This comment by Forrest seems to sum it up nicely:
I like the idea of Vetta Videos, but iStock once again shows that they are greedy, rat *insult removed*, so I'm leaning toward opting out.
-
LOL, neat point. Perhaps he always wins the battles, so all in the garden is rosy.
The thing that is so awful is not that he continues as a front man for the organisation but that he repeatedly presents himself as the superhero fighting for the masses, who is always ready to fall on his sword for the common good. It sounds like a kid who hides in a cupboard from the school bully and then comes out and tells the class that the bully wouldn't dare take him on. Is there a technical term for that behaviour?
Haha! That's a great description! He sure does fancy himself as some kind of caped crusader, doesn't he? It might be fun to go through the cast of characters and assign them roles based on their behavior and how they seem to perceive themselves.
Lobo = Traffic Cop
JJRD = Caped Crusader
rogermexico = Dudley Do-right
LOL
-
Joke of the week from JJRD:
"We are moving towards a glitch-free world... and we will get there."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=1#reply[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=1#reply[/url])
Followed by - what? sick joke of the week? - from JJRD:
Posted By JJRD:
The day iStock and or Getty Images disappoint me & my passion for sharing Digital Media, I will be out the door faster than a speeding bullet.
[dcdp says: So what you're saying is that nothing iStock has done in the past 6 months has disappointed you.
I think that tells me everything I need to know about where you stand.]
JJRD replies: You may think what you want.
I know what we are doing, what we are fighting for and where we stand in our global objectives, and I stand behind them."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=4#reply[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=4#reply[/url])
It seems the Company could never disappoint the Company Man.
Ha. Somehow I missed this post yesterday. Ha. HAHAHA :D
-
Haha! That's a great description! He sure does fancy himself as some kind of caped crusader, doesn't he? It might be fun to go through the cast of characters and assign them roles based on their behavior and how they seem to perceive themselves.
Lobo = Traffic Cop
JJRD = Caped Crusader
rogermexico = Dudley Do-right
LOL
KK = Forrest Gump?
-
Haha! That's a great description! He sure does fancy himself as some kind of caped crusader, doesn't he? It might be fun to go through the cast of characters and assign them roles based on their behavior and how they seem to perceive themselves.
Lobo = Traffic Cop
JJRD = Caped Crusader
rogermexico = Dudley Do-right
LOL
:D
KK = Forrest Gump?
-
Update from Roger M. on the state of the search. It really doesn't sound as if significant gains are expected to be made any time soon;
"The work on search has been focused on two big projects. There hasn't been a lot of news lately while we chew through those tasks but we are getting closer here so I'll let everybody know where we are.
First of all is parsing multiple term searches - how and when we make phrases, how we incorporate boolean operators, etc.
Second is an optimization of the search engine itself and how the back end and front end interact. This is mainly looking at performance - speed and all of that.
They've made a lot of progress in both areas and we're getting closer. I don't have a time frame right now for release dates, or we'll see these projects released together.
Once we've these two pieces of work are completed, we'll be able to add to the filter functionality. We'll see the color and copyspace and other search filters come back in at that point.
Independent of this, there is also another team doing a CSS overhaul for search. We will see some successive weeks with minor tweaks to the front end layout of the facets. That isn't directly functionality related, but it will include things like mouseover time on that info tooltip and things like that."
-
Update from Roger M. on the state of the search. It really doesn't sound as if significant gains are expected to be made any time soon;
"The work on search has been focused on two big projects. There hasn't been a lot of news lately while we chew through those tasks but we are getting closer here so I'll let everybody know where we are.
First of all is parsing multiple term searches - how and when we make phrases, how we incorporate boolean operators, etc.
Second is an optimization of the search engine itself and how the back end and front end interact. This is mainly looking at performance - speed and all of that.
They've made a lot of progress in both areas and we're getting closer. I don't have a time frame right now for release dates, or we'll see these projects released together.
Once we've these two pieces of work are completed, we'll be able to add to the filter functionality. We'll see the color and copyspace and other search filters come back in at that point.
Independent of this, there is also another team doing a CSS overhaul for search. We will see some successive weeks with minor tweaks to the front end layout of the facets. That isn't directly functionality related, but it will include things like mouseover time on that info tooltip and things like that."
Oh boy. Prepare for another round of f*ckups. ::)
-
Update from Roger M. on the state of the search. It really doesn't sound as if significant gains are expected to be made any time soon;
"The work on search has been focused on two big projects. There hasn't been a lot of news lately while we chew through those tasks but we are getting closer here so I'll let everybody know where we are.
First of all is parsing multiple term searches - how and when we make phrases, how we incorporate boolean operators, etc.
Second is an optimization of the search engine itself and how the back end and front end interact. This is mainly looking at performance - speed and all of that.
They've made a lot of progress in both areas and we're getting closer. I don't have a time frame right now for release dates, or we'll see these projects released together.
Once we've these two pieces of work are completed, we'll be able to add to the filter functionality. We'll see the color and copyspace and other search filters come back in at that point.
Independent of this, there is also another team doing a CSS overhaul for search. We will see some successive weeks with minor tweaks to the front end layout of the facets. That isn't directly functionality related, but it will include things like mouseover time on that info tooltip and things like that."
Oh boy. Prepare for another round of f*ckups. ::)
*heavy sigh*
-
Has anyone seen the new My Uploads page format? You have GOT to be kidding me!! We have a single column that has images with text interspersed. Apparently nobody at IS has ever used Excel or any other table software.
-
Yes. I saw it and thankfully Sean has updated his Greasemonkey scripts (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&messageid=5979912) - which broke after IS's changes - so I don't have to look at it any more.
-
Now that they've "tweaked" it again, my connection has become completely unstable. I suppose it isn't a surprise, it's just another way of sending users somewhere else.
-
Sean's updated scripts aren't working for me :'(
Why don't they just get rid of the column for ratings? Does anyone care about ratings anymore, really? Seems like a quaint vestige of long ago times.
-
LMK what you see in the error console after using the new script: http://www.digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js (http://www.digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js)
-
Sean's updated scripts aren't working for me :'(
Why don't they just get rid of the column for ratings? Does anyone care about ratings anymore, really? Seems like a quaint vestige of long ago times.
Got the new ones, they work now. (again)
Maybe someone can explain to me where the ratings come from and what they mean. I never bothered to ask or care, just like the same on a couple other sites like Panther and Mostphotos. Since they always came right after an upload, I thought they were from the reviewers. But I bet I'm wrong! ;)
-
Please submit a new release signed by the witness on the same date as signed by the model. Then to go through the freaking hassle to have a new release signed and the f*ckers reject the f*cking photo. I don't know who is stupider, me or them.
-
Please submit a new release signed by the witness on the same date as signed by the model. Then to go through the freaking hassle to have a new release signed and the f*ckers reject the f*cking photo. I don't know who is stupider, me or them.
That is so frustrating! I went through the same thing . I even HAD the models and witnesses sign at the same time, but one guy had the date wrong, and it ruined his release and two others he witnessed! What a massive PITA rounding three people up and getting new releases.
-
Please submit a new release signed by the witness on the same date as signed by the model. Then to go through the freaking hassle to have a new release signed and the f*ckers reject the f*cking photo. I don't know who is stupider, me or them.
I had quite a few of those. They would reject it for one reason, I would fix, resubmit, then they would reject for something else. Like they couldn't list all the things wrong with it the first time. But this is really where I realized that there was NO consistency to reviewing and contributors are pretty much at their mercy and whims...
-
Please submit a new release signed by the witness on the same date as signed by the model. Then to go through the freaking hassle to have a new release signed and the f*ckers reject the f*cking photo. I don't know who is stupider, me or them.
I had quite a few of those. They would reject it for one reason, I would fix, resubmit, then they would reject for something else. Like they couldn't list all the things wrong with it the first time. But this is really where I realized that there was NO consistency to reviewing and contributors are pretty much at their mercy and whims...
I had a series accepted last year, then deactivated for IP. I've uploaded them again for editorial, and half have been rejected, for a gamut of reasons.
-
Please submit a new release signed by the witness on the same date as signed by the model. Then to go through the freaking hassle to have a new release signed and the f*ckers reject the f*cking photo. I don't know who is stupider, me or them.
If the witness is witnessing the model signing the release, how could they do that on a different day?
-
The better question Caz, is why didn't I review the thing from top to bottom before the shoot started? Lesson learned.
-
thanks Sean for the scripts, turns it back into a decent looking page. :)
Make hundreds of millions per year, cant fix mistakes and rely on your contributors to make the site usuable
-
I had quite a few of those. They would reject it for one reason, I would fix, resubmit, then they would reject for something else. Like they couldn't list all the things wrong with it the first time. But this is really where I realized that there was NO consistency to reviewing and contributors are pretty much at their mercy and whims...
I think the problem is that the re-submission doesn't go to the original reviewer. And maybe the new reviewer knows that it was already rejected once, so he automatically looks at it with a hypercritical eye, and sure enough, finds something else. Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks. I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system.
-
I had quite a few of those. They would reject it for one reason, I would fix, resubmit, then they would reject for something else. Like they couldn't list all the things wrong with it the first time. But this is really where I realized that there was NO consistency to reviewing and contributors are pretty much at their mercy and whims...
I think the problem is that the re-submission doesn't go to the original reviewer. And maybe the new reviewer knows that it was already rejected once, so he automatically looks at it with a hypercritical eye, and sure enough, finds something else. Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks. I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system.
Not if it's marked re-submit allowed? We just picked a different route to the same destination. (personal opinion of course)
Just found one of my removed images on sale by someone else. Not my image, but the same content that was removed for potential copyright. So I wrote to Scout. Since it was removed, not rejected, you can't put in a ticket. Scout did answer, submit a ticket to customer support and ask them. So I did, and they said, upload the image again, they can't re-instate an image.
Going along the same lines. I'd guess the option to re-submit would be, correct and do that, or correct and upload again? ;)
Something to do when I'm bored. Find the upload from 2009, upload again and correct the copyright issue portion.
-
Something to do when I'm bored. Find the upload from 2009, upload again and correct the copyright issue portion.
Or upload as editorial.
The queue is now 89921, almost 2000 more than it was 13 months ago.
They clearly haven't worked out what they mean by editorial: loads or rejections and inconsistencies being noted in the Editorial forum, and some important questions aren't being answered.
Plus they are insisting on strict editorial guidelines about editing and captioning, which is fair enough for some buyers, but they still won't allow these potential buyers to filter editorial only, though you can filter out editorial images.
-
Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks. I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system.
Not if it's marked re-submit allowed? We just picked a different route to the same destination. (personal opinion of course)
Yeah, sorry, but that's actually not accurate. Or, at least, it wasn't a couple of years ago when I got "caught" doing exactly that. I got an admonishment stating that the file had been uploaded as new when it should have been uploaded as a resubmittal (I don't even know how they could possibly have found out), and I was asked (ok, told!) not to do it again.
Since then, I've always used the resubmit link, even though that's extra work since it can't be done (yet?!) through DM. :(
-
Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks. I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system.
Not if it's marked re-submit allowed? We just picked a different route to the same destination. (personal opinion of course)
Yeah, sorry, but that's actually not accurate. Or, at least, it wasn't a couple of years ago when I got "caught" doing exactly that. I got an admonishment stating that the file had been uploaded as new when it should have been uploaded as a resubmittal (I don't even know how they could possibly have found out), and I was asked (ok, told!) not to do it again.
Since then, I've always used the resubmit link, even though that's extra work since it can't be done (yet?!) through DM. :(
Thanks for clearing that one up. I would have guessed it was OK, since it's not the same image. And you know the stories about fixing one thing and having a photo rejected for something different. Odd as it is. I also remember reading many posts here from people who don't resubmit, but send in as new. I seldom if ever re-send images, so it's not a big issue for me, but you saved someone else a potential problem.
IS support ticket on my removed image: "You are welcome to re-upload the file as an editorial file if you like. We can't change the file type on our end, it needs to be re-uploaded and the 'editorial' checkbox selected."
-
IS support ticket on my removed image: "You are welcome to re-upload the file as an editorial file if you like. We can't change the file type on our end, it needs to be re-uploaded and the 'editorial' checkbox selected."
BEWARE:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310332&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310332&page=1)
They're changing the parameters by the minute.
My guess is that with so many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.
-
... many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.
That would indicate that there are rules. It seems that they are making them up as they go.
-
... many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.
That would indicate that there are rules. It seems that they are making them up as they go.
Making them up and changing them as they go, as some have had acceptances for editorial, which were subsequently rejected. The initial instructions re captions were unclear/ambiguous and led to many rejections while they clarified them.
I guess it was the office junior's turn to choose something new and said, "Why don't we try editorial?" and they coggled something together, apu.
Bear in mind that it was often repeated, and not so long ago, that they would not be offering editorial.
But having decided that they would, why wouldn't they have got some people experienced in selling and marketing editorial and thrashed out all the issues, including but not only:
- What are our target markets? (share with contributors)
- How do we want images to be captioned? (test with at least twenty users of various levels and experience who have nothing to do with development)
- What will/won't be allowed? Is there any logical/legal reason for this? Explain clearly to contributors.
- Hire and train members for Team Metadata, as there is clearly going to be a rush on new keywords. Urgently, the many words which already have a meaning in the CV, but new meanings for editorial, which mean that important words can't be used, even if they are the main keyword for that image. Of course, the existing team, which is stretched too far as it is, couldn't be expected to cope. Maybe the temps could do the background maintenance work, e.g. the backlog of wiki files, and the experienced team could work on the Editorial keyword issues.
- Hire and train new inspectors.
- Decide whether the 'normal' istock lighting standards are appropriate, bearing in mind that editorial events happen when they happen. If so, at least don't send lighting rejections with all these cookie cutter lighting hints for using artificial light for obviously available light situations (which are useless to natural light photographers anyway).
- Test with a sample of contributors from all levels.
- Launch to the general community.
[/li]
[/list]
I'm sure there are lots more steps, but I've never been in 'business'.
Decide if, at the beginning, upload quotas for editorial should be limited.
-
... many of us having got random rejections while they change the rules at a whim, the next 'privilege' is going to relate to acceptance rate.
That would indicate that there are rules. It seems that they are making them up as they go.
Making them up and changing them as they go, as some have had acceptances for editorial, which were subsequently rejected. The initial instructions re captions were unclear/ambiguous and led to many rejections while they clarified them.
I guess it was the office junior's turn to choose something new and said, "Why don't we try editorial?" and they coggled something together, apu.
Bear in mind that it was often repeated, and not so long ago, that they would not be offering editorial.
But having decided that they would, why wouldn't they have got some people experienced in selling and marketing editorial and thrashed out all the issues, including but not only:
- What are our target markets? (share with contributors)
- How do we want images to be captioned? (test with at least twenty users of various levels and experience who have nothing to do with development)
- What will/won't be allowed? Is there any logical/legal reason for this? Explain clearly to contributors.
- Hire and train members for Team Metadata, as there is clearly going to be a rush on new keywords. Urgently, the many words which already have a meaning in the CV, but new meanings for editorial, which mean that important words can't be used, even if they are the main keyword for that image. Of course, the existing team, which is stretched too far as it is, couldn't be expected to cope. Maybe the temps could do the background maintenance work, e.g. the backlog of wiki files, and the experienced team could work on the Editorial keyword issues.
- Hire and train new inspectors.
- Decide whether the 'normal' istock lighting standards are appropriate, bearing in mind that editorial events happen when they happen. If so, at least don't send lighting rejections with all these cookie cutter lighting hints for using artificial light for obviously available light situations (which are useless to natural light photographers anyway).
- Test with a sample of contributors from all levels.
- Launch to the general community.
[/li]
[/list]
I'm sure there are lots more steps, but I've never been in 'business'.
Decide if, at the beginning, upload quotas for editorial should be limited.
OMG. I'd not been into the editorial forum until now and all I can say is what a mess! Once again Istock rolling something out without much thought and the contributor base is the beta test. Crowdtesting at its worst.
-
Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks. I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system.
Not if it's marked re-submit allowed? We just picked a different route to the same destination. (personal opinion of course)
Yeah, sorry, but that's actually not accurate. Or, at least, it wasn't a couple of years ago when I got "caught" doing exactly that. I got an admonishment stating that the file had been uploaded as new when it should have been uploaded as a resubmittal (I don't even know how they could possibly have found out), and I was asked (ok, told!) not to do it again.
Since then, I've always used the resubmit link, even though that's extra work since it can't be done (yet?!) through DM. :(
I'm not surprised. What would surprise me is to find out there's a way to 'sting' contributors that IS hasn'tthought of. But let me be devil's advocate and ask, regarding re-submission vs. just waiting and submitting as new: what the heck is the difference and why should IS care? The photo is either good enough, or it isn't, and any inspector should be able to decide, and past history is irrelevant. Why have a special 'resubmit' process unless it's purpose is just to look closer and find even more stuff wrong?
-
Instead of wasting time with resubmissions and appeals, I've had better luck just submitting the same image again after a few weeks. I don't know if that's technically a violation of their system.
Not if it's marked re-submit allowed? We just picked a different route to the same destination. (personal opinion of course)
Yeah, sorry, but that's actually not accurate. Or, at least, it wasn't a couple of years ago when I got "caught" doing exactly that. I got an admonishment stating that the file had been uploaded as new when it should have been uploaded as a resubmittal (I don't even know how they could possibly have found out), and I was asked (ok, told!) not to do it again.
Since then, I've always used the resubmit link, even though that's extra work since it can't be done (yet?!) through DM. :(
I'm not surprised. What would surprise me is to find out there's a way to 'sting' contributors that IS hasn'tthought of. But let me be devil's advocate and ask, regarding re-submission vs. just waiting and submitting as new: what the heck is the difference and why should IS care? The photo is either good enough, or it isn't, and any inspector should be able to decide, and past history is irrelevant. Why have a special 'resubmit' process unless it's purpose is just to look closer and find even more stuff wrong?
Have to admit that when I started, I didn't even notice the resubmit button for some months. I read the email rejection notice, and if I could fix the file, I did. Not deliberately avoiding the rejection button: ignorance, not malice.
That advantage of using the resubmit button is that your info is mostly still there, but you still have to DA and add categories.
-
I'm not surprised. What would surprise me is to find out there's a way to 'sting' contributors that IS hasn'tthought of. But let me be devil's advocate and ask, regarding re-submission vs. just waiting and submitting as new: what the heck is the difference and why should IS care? The photo is either good enough, or it isn't, and any inspector should be able to decide, and past history is irrelevant. Why have a special 'resubmit' process unless it's purpose is just to look closer and find even more stuff wrong?
------------------------
I've been told in private conversations with inspectors that Istock knows the human inspection process is inconsistent. A resubmitted image is flagged for closer inspection since one inspector found at least 1 flaw with it before. They know a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed.
-
I've been told in private conversations with inspectors that Istock knows the human inspection process is inconsistent. A resubmitted image is flagged for closer inspection since one inspector found at least 1 flaw with it before. They know a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed.
That's what I suspected and leads to the maddening situation of new problems being flagged on resubmission. Sorry but I don't see the logic of the statement that "a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed." The inspection criteria are the same, the inspectors are all equal, the photo has the same chance on a second submission.
The real problem is that their submission system - i.e. their software - can apparently only report one flaw back to the contributor. It may also be true that they tell their inspectors to stop after finding just one flaw. But still, an inspection is an inspection, there's no reason to even bother checking for an image being submitted twice. Just inspect it like any other.
It's like the TSA at the airports, adding layer after layer, there's no realistic balancing of risks against costs.
-
I've been told in private conversations with inspectors that Istock knows the human inspection process is inconsistent. A resubmitted image is flagged for closer inspection since one inspector found at least 1 flaw with it before. They know a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed.
That's what I suspected and leads to the maddening situation of new problems being flagged on resubmission. Sorry but I don't see the logic of the statement that "a "new" submission without that previous submission history is a lot more likely to get accepted even if the original flaw is not fixed." The inspection criteria are the same, the inspectors are all equal, the photo has the same chance on a second submission.
The real problem is that their submission system - i.e. their software - can apparently only report one flaw back to the contributor.
I've had far too many rejections with multiple reasons so I know that is not the case. (I think my record was 4, but maybe it just felt like it -- I know I've gotten 3 several times.) It is probably true that some inspectors do stop at one reason, but from my (unfortunate) experience, many do not. Maybe if your submissions were worse you'd encounter it, too. :D
I'm pretty sure Sadstock has it exactly right. I've recently had a couple of rejections ("no resubmits") that I suspect if I could run them through the inspection process a second time, some would get accepted. If I could then run the new rejections through a third time, more would. iStock's inspectors are (IMO) better than most, but they are still human and still make mistakes (mostly whenever they reject mine ;D ).
But I will also say that it seems to me that resubmits are sometimes inspected more quickly than new ones, and it's quite rare that mine are rejected a second time for a different reason. (I have had a few rejected again for the same reason, unfortunately, where the second inspector didn't think I solved the problem, even though I did think so.)
-
Maybe not iSTock's fault, but still embarrassing:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1)
-
Maybe not iSTock's fault, but still embarrassing:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1[/url])
Ooops!
-
Maybe not iSTock's fault, but still embarrassing:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311312&page=1[/url])
This was the funniest reply in that thread:
one person said:
I'm not finding excuses, you might have missed I said I think it was unfortunate.
Christine, I understand it was not fun, I am just saying that the site might not work perfectly for teens as contributors.
another person replied:
I think the general consensus is that the site currently doesn't work perfectly for a lot of people as either contributors or customers, regardless of age. Though, I am glad it got fixed so quickly.
LMAO!
-
What a mortifying experience for the OP!
Glad Istock dealt with it. They should really be more careful about what is displayed in promotional areas of the site.
Also, the inspectors drop the ball often on letting nudity, etc. through the content filter. I have the content filter set and I see graphic nudity there on a fairly regular basis.
It really does make the site seem unprofessional. I have models that I am certain would not want to be displayed on a search page with nude people performing sex acts.
Istock has this sort of problem a lot and AFAIK it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Content filters on the other sites that accept nudity seem to be working fine.
-
what
How my pending videos have few (1-6) views if they are not accepted jet and not visible to buyers?
-
What a mortifying experience for the OP!
Glad Istock dealt with it. They should really be more careful about what is displayed in promotional areas of the site.
Also, the inspectors drop the ball often on letting graphic nudity, etc. through the content filter. I have the content filter set and I see nudes etc. there on a fairly regular basis.
It really does make the site seem unprofessional. I have models that I am certain would not want to be displayed on a search page with nude people performing sex acts.
Istock has this sort of problem a lot and AFAIK it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Content filters on the other sites that accept nudity seem to be working fine.
But it was an external .jpg that the contributor created to link to a lightbox in the description area. Content filters don't work on those. The contributor could have added the banner after it became the FIOTW.
I think it would be a good idea to not have any free images from contributors who have a lot of NWS images in their portfolio though :\
-
But it was an external .jpg that the contributor created to link to a lightbox in the description area. Content filters don't work on those. The contributor could have added the banner after it became the FIOTW.
I think it would be a good idea to not have any free images from contributors who have a lot of NWS images in their portfolio though :\
^^That's one solution.
Don't know if it has been established if that link was there before or not. But I'll stick by my point about images that should be content filtered getting into the regular collection on a very frequent basis. I can see how one might slip through now and then, but I find them all the time, and I don't browse the collection all that often.
-
what
How my pending videos have few (1-6) views if they are not accepted jet and not visible to buyers?
When admins or others view the pending file (most often if there's some sort of problem - stuck in the wrong part of the queue, missing a MR, some other glitch) it registers as a view.
-
What a mortifying experience for the OP!
Glad Istock dealt with it. They should really be more careful about what is displayed in promotional areas of the site.
Also, the inspectors drop the ball often on letting graphic nudity, etc. through the content filter. I have the content filter set and I see nudes etc. there on a fairly regular basis.
It really does make the site seem unprofessional. I have models that I am certain would not want to be displayed on a search page with nude people performing sex acts.
Istock has this sort of problem a lot and AFAIK it doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Content filters on the other sites that accept nudity seem to be working fine.
But it was an external .jpg that the contributor created to link to a lightbox in the description area. Content filters don't work on those. The contributor could have added the banner after it became the FIOTW.
I think it would be a good idea to not have any free images from contributors who have a lot of NWS images in their portfolio though :\
I don't know what the final resolution was to this issue (don't have time or inclination to go read thru the posts at iStock) but I would hope that if it was some JPG that the user posted on the page after getting FIOTW that iStock held them accountable in some way. Like a temporary ban or something like that. sadly, I doubt they make a public stand about the repercussions but if they did it would certainly make people think twice before doing this sort of thing.
-
This afternoon rogermexico announced a bunch of fixes including multi term phrases in search. I just spent a little time going over some of the items I had reported problems with and they're different - not better - and still horribly broken.
I'm just horrified that they pushed such a wreck of a fix. I don't think they even went through and tested the exampled they'd been given in the bug reports in that massive thread (bug fixing 101 is test all the cases in the bug reports to make sure they're fixed).
See my post here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281812&messageid=6031192) describing the broken things I found. rogermexico's post is a couple above mine.
A phrase my Dad liked to use about useless people was "Couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery" (piss up is English slang for lots of drinking)
iStock's software people working on search really deserve that description. How utterly depressing to see many weeks of work producing this.
-
This afternoon rogermexico announced a bunch of fixes including multi term phrases in search. I just spent a little time going over some of the items I had reported problems with and they're different - not better - and still horribly broken.
I'm just horrified that they pushed such a wreck of a fix. I don't think they even went through and tested the exampled they'd been given in the bug reports in that massive thread (bug fixing 101 is test all the cases in the bug reports to make sure they're fixed).
See my post here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=281812&messageid=6031192[/url]) describing the broken things I found. rogermexico's post is a couple above mine.
A phrase my Dad liked to use about useless people was "Couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery" (piss up is English slang for lots of drinking)
iStock's software people working on search really deserve that description. How utterly depressing to see many weeks of work producing this.
they have no clue about testing or user interface. ridiculous.
-
Looks like Istock's site designers have gotten bored with trying to fix the site and decided to break some more stuff. They have been messing with the blogs. Now my blog that I carefully designed to give buyers and easy time shopping for my images, like this:
(http://www.pbase.com/lisafx/image/133097915/medium.jpg)
Now looks like this:
(http://www.pbase.com/lisafx/image/133097908/medium.jpg)
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: ::)
(http://www.pbase.com/lisafx/image/133097930.jpg)
-
WOO YAY! That is such an improvement! NOT!
sheesh. when they learn to leave well enough alone?!
-
snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: ::)
Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator? istock never seems to get around to changing errors on their site (understatement). I don't know.
-
snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: ::)
Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator? istock never seems to get around to changing errors on their site (understatement). I don't know.
true, but you gotta admit they have mastered the art of creating errors on their site! ;)
-
LisaFX:
There's a thread about the lightbox here. My lightboxes seem to be working; so it would seem that it's some sort of issue between IS and DM. Franky has given a way of fixing it towards the end of the thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1)
-
snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: ::)
Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator?
Exactly! It's ludicrous.
LisaFX:
There's a thread about the lightbox here. My lightboxes seem to be working; so it would seem that it's some sort of issue between IS and DM. Franky has given a way of fixing it towards the end of the thread:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1[/url])
Thanks for the link. Appears it is a widespread problem, not just in the blog, but also in the individual files.
Although I appreciate the link and the suggestion of a fix, I'm just gonna let Istock programmers sort this one out. Or not. Screw it. There is no way I am going to go file-by-file and correct anything.
-
snip
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: ::)
Yes, I thought he resigned from istock. Maybe that info has been there a while, from when he was blog administrator?
Exactly! It's ludicrous.
Sorry, I missed your sarcasm the first time around. :D My brain is fried today and this IS stuff makes it explode even more.
-
LisaFX:
There's a thread about the lightbox here. My lightboxes seem to be working; so it would seem that it's some sort of issue between IS and DM. Franky has given a way of fixing it towards the end of the thread:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1[/url])
Thanks for the link. Appears it is a widespread problem, not just in the blog, but also in the individual files.
Although I appreciate the link and the suggestion of a fix, I'm just gonna let Istock programmers sort this one out. Or not. Screw it. There is no way I am going to go file-by-file and correct anything.
Then when/if they 'fixed' it, you'd probably have to fix yours back. Or there would probably be more problems.
Wonder what happened if we all applied to be the elusive person who can break their software?
-
Not an epic fail, but still kind of funny (and apparently annoying, LOL)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313022&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313022&page=1)
-
Not an epic fail, but still kind of funny (and apparently annoying, LOL)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313022&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313022&page=1[/url])
They did a little change overnight GMT whereby you can turn it off my clicking the x at the extreme right of the orange strip.
I guess it means they're using some code that doesn't render in IE6. IE6 can be limiting, but obviously they need to support it as so many people must continue to use it if they have no choice at work.
-
Something else, mentioned before...
Wow, I knew the search was broken, but i didnt realize HOW broken! Searching anything with more than 1 term is totally screwed up and usually gives just 1 page with results. (for example all my "dog" searches did)
A miracle we even get sales at all...
-
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: ::)
It took them about 2 years to remove Peebert after he left, so I figure I'll be there until at least 2012. Yes, I have told them about it.
-
Something else, mentioned before...
Wow, I knew the search was broken, but i didnt realize HOW broken! Searching anything with more than 1 term is totally screwed up and usually gives just 1 page with results. (for example all my "dog" searches did)
A miracle we even get sales at all...
Oh yes, but it's kinda random.
e.g. I clicked on my BS for 'more like this' (usually many). ATM, it's showing only one image. Not even my alternate image which has the same keywords. Click on the alternate and you get the same one image, not my BS.
But 'more like this' from some of my other pics give the sort of results you'd expect.
Plus random searches giving you instead the keyword 'source', which seems to be all the images in the collection, while other searches take you to the forums ...
Not many buyers are finding me these days. This is my worst week for ages (in a long decline) DESPITE the introduction of editorial (6 editorial dls this week, mostly XSm).
-
Yeah, it's acting very, very strange; i still thought we were talking about the issues like horse + leg giving strange results but this is way waaay more serious :'(
I'm with you in having the worst week(s) since a long time...luckily Shutterstock and Dreamstime are doing better than ever here covering up for the damage. but i sincerely feel for the exclusives right now...
I may hope their programming/IT/whatever team is working 24/7 to get this fixed, istock is broken up to it's core right now. (but most likely they have the weekend off, right?)
-
And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: ::)
It took them about 2 years to remove Peebert after he left, so I figure I'll be there until at least 2012. Yes, I have told them about it.
To be honest, Rob, there's something oddly comforting about that throwback to happier times. Kind of nice to imagine for a moment that the old gang is still running things...
-
I noticed a worrying glitch,a sale of $7.80 not added up to the total amount,that happened 4 hours ago still not added,but the next 3 sales of $1 from 3 differents files were added.So if you do not follow every sale wich is almost impossible to follow,hard to known this is happening.Glich or something else...
-
There are others posting in the help forum (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313782&page=1) about what appears to be some sort of server inconsistency problem - happened last week too. Keep an eye on it, but it should eventually settle and show the right amount consistently.
-
Apparently Istock is planning to be "... doing a push that includes optimisation for the search engine ..." either today or tomorrow.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=1)
Although it hasn't happened yet I thought this belongs in the 'Epic Fail' thread based on past performance. The only real unknown is just how bad the outcome is likely to be.
-
Apparently Istock is planning to be "... doing a push that includes optimisation for the search engine ..." either today or tomorrow.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=1[/url])
Although it hasn't happened yet I thought this belongs in the 'Epic Fail' thread based on past performance. The only real unknown is just how bad the outcome is likely to be.
Site seems to be down as of this moment.
Hmmmm, strange, it's my connection. I can get on here, but not to iStock or Wikipedia ...
-
Not holding my breath.
-
Not holding my breath.
I am, over the possibility that they could break the search even further. :-\
-
They fixed the search... but shuffled the Best Match. I had some long time page-1 sellers that are now off in la-la land.
-
They fixed the search... but shuffled the Best Match. I had some long time page-1 sellers that are now off in la-la land.
Is this what happened to my sales? Today looks more like a weekend.
-
They fixed the search... but shuffled the Best Match. I had some long time page-1 sellers that are now off in la-la land.
Ditto, what a nightmare...
I heard new files get punished severely too compared to before.
O..o..o istock istock istock *shakes head*
-
new files are buried - best match sort is more like by downlaods.
My port is 13 pages @ 200 per page and my new files from the last ten days show up half way through page 11
-
new files are buried - best match sort is more like by downlaods.
My port is 13 pages @ 200 per page and my new files from the last ten days show up half way through page 11
Wow. Sorting my port by best match looks like I have time traveled back to 2006-07 or so.
OTOH, those were pretty good years. Maybe this won't be all bad... ;)
-
Wow. Sorting my port by best match looks like I have time traveled back to 2006-07 or so.
OTOH, those were pretty good years. Maybe this won't be all bad... ;)
Good years... Good memories. Now... Not so much.
-
new files are buried - best match sort is more like by downlaods.
It seems weird. One of my 'test files' has moved up to position 1 for a particular keyword combo (it was 6th at the weekend).
However, my second best seller overall has moved below another 10 I have with similar keywords (in fact, to 887 out of 918 for the main keyword), even the one with no sales, and below some badly DAd images which don't even show the main keyword - and many by non-exclusives, even older and with 0 sales.. Hey, wooooo, that's been a big-seller, iStock - benefitting you more than me. And oddly it's way higher in my own port's best match than it was this morning. i even checked in case the EL option had become unchecked, as it's not an editorial, but it was still opted in.
-
I see you still can't filter on editorial alone, which seems bizarre. If you're insisting on strict editorial standards, why not allow those who need that degree of strictness to filter out the rest? (Yes, I know other images can be used in a light-editorial fashion).
-
Seems to be a huge bias against exclusive files.
Is that a heavy hint?
Update: not on all searches.
Seems to be very random overall according to the search term/s used. I've just tried a different search and most of the top were Exclusive.
Seem to have listened to the buyers re Vetta. I have a Vetta with 19 dls several lines below my similar non-Vetta with 2 dls.
-
And a bias *against* Agency/Vetta. Boy they really f*cked up this time. :D
-
Seems to be a huge bias against exclusive files.
Is that a heavy hint?
Update: not on all searches.
Seems to be very random overall according to the search term/s used. I've just tried a different search and most of the top were Exclusive.
Seem to have listened to the buyers re Vetta. I have a Vetta with 19 dls several lines below my similar non-Vetta with 2 dls.
FWIW, my sales today are in the toilet. If the bias was really heavily against exclusives I would have expected to see some benefit.
-
Where is this keyword slider people are talking about? I don't see it.
-
Seems to be a huge bias against exclusive files.
Is that a heavy hint?
Update: not on all searches.
Seems to be very random overall according to the search term/s used. I've just tried a different search and most of the top were Exclusive.
Seem to have listened to the buyers re Vetta. I have a Vetta with 19 dls several lines below my similar non-Vetta with 2 dls.
FWIW, my sales today are in the toilet. If the bias was really heavily against exclusives I would have expected to see some benefit.
I tried several searches where I would expect to feature reasonably higher, all of which pushed exclusive files right down.
I then tried 'young woman' and that was heavily weighted towards exclusives.
Didn't the change just happen within the past couple of hours?
-
Where is this keyword slider people are talking about? I don't see it.
Display settings, bottom left on any search results page. Click on the triangle to open up a panel.
-
Seems to be a huge bias against exclusive files.
Is that a heavy hint?
Update: not on all searches.
Seems to be very random overall according to the search term/s used. I've just tried a different search and most of the top were Exclusive.
Seem to have listened to the buyers re Vetta. I have a Vetta with 19 dls several lines below my similar non-Vetta with 2 dls.
FWIW, my sales today are in the toilet. If the bias was really heavily against exclusives I would have expected to see some benefit.
I tried several searches (e.g. Glasgow) where I have files, all of which pushed exclusive files right down.
I then tried 'young woman' and that was heavily weighted towards exclusives.
Didn't the change just happen within the past couple of hours?
-
Where is this keyword slider people are talking about? I don't see it.
Display settings, bottom left on any search results page. Click on the triangle to open up a panel.
Oh, right, how obvious. ::)
Why didn't they put it in with all the other filters on the left hand side? That's where I was looking.
-
Oh, and because for some reason, as RM explained, they've biassed the best match towards 'median kerword relevancy' rather than 'high keyword relevancy' (the reason for that decision would be ... ?) there are some really bad results, with spammed or irrelvant images coming before relevant images, sometimes even in the first position.
Is there really any point in anything at iStock any more?
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312)
JJ is writing and promises to post about the search issue. I am (literally) holding my breath. I so look forward to his posts :)
-
Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.
-
deleted
-
Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.
So, you're Curt? If so I was enjoying your posts . . .
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482)
JJ's message. I'm sorry, but didn't it basically just say, "Trust me" ??? I really don't see anything different.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482[/url])
JJ's message. I'm sorry, but didn't it basically just say, "Trust me" ??? I really don't see anything different.
More, as gostwyck put it, misty-eyed meanderings. LOL
And clearly, searching "mountain" *should* return an empty picture frame as the first result. No, no bug there. ::)
(Oh god, I just finished reading that and threw up a little in my mouth - do they really think people will buy that?)
-
Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.
So, you're Curt? If so I was enjoying your posts . . .
Well I'm glad you enjoyed them. :) I never was one to hold my tongue. And see where it got me !!! Actually feels like a ton lifted from my back.
-
More of the sincere and passionate JJ.
This is big, this is great, we're going to win you back, we're passionate about the Istock community. [violins swirling] But you need to give it a chance...
We've said all this before, but this time gosh darn it, this time we mean it. Oh and please don't sue or audit us, cause that would not be in the spirit of the great pre-September 7, 2010 istock family that we care so much about as we rip it apart. Oh and were not going to give you back the percentage we took away, so the return of that spirit will depend on some contests for a camera back, some new type of bling, and mouse pads, lots of them.
I'm tearing up so much I don't know how I've been able to write this. :P
Oh and he's getting the knives out for tomorrow about the "no best match bugs here" features that is producing unintended results? Who is he going to stab? Is somebody in IT resisting the idea of putting out useful code? Why not test it better then cutting loose afterward?
-
JJRD
And what is critical to understand is that we always keep a severe and rational eye on Best Match with the interests of contributors and clients alike. We are all in this together and we want to assist you in licensing as many relevant assets as possible... for the benefit of all involved.
OK, that made me gag. ::) Love the new words learned: severe, rational, robust, assets.
-
Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.
Looks like this forum will be going from strength to strength... when's PeskyMonkey coming on board? :P
Back on topic, did anyone notice a problem with XXL sizes (poss. XXXL as well, haven't checked) on file pages? It shows as first in the size list, before XS, with no pixel dimensions given.
-
^Send a mail to contributor relations.
Different note, I just had some files rejected as editorial that said I should remove logos and resubmit as regular RF but the photos were of paintings that I think are not nearly old enough to be public domain, what am I supposed to make of that? It's funny after all the images of things in the public domain being rejected for copyright I get this.
-
Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.
Welcome to the Happy Land of the LOBOtomised.
-
Oh God! JJRD's putting his arse on the line again:
"Now, let me be crystal clear: if you are seeing some of your recent uploads showing up in strange places at this very moment... it is simply and absolutely unacceptable.
Never was this project intended to produce that result.
I will be the one fighting first thing in the morning at HQ to have this solved... and knives will be flying.
Yes, I am putting my ass on the line here... and if I may add, I am enjoying it.
Because I care, have always cared. "
I think I'm going to vomit......
-
Where is that in the forum? I just want to check which 'project' it refers to...
-
Where is that in the forum? I just want to check which 'project' it refers to...
See this message http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482)
-
Thanks BT... that's a confident statement isn't it? Only time will tell... but I think it's all been too much for so many that what's lost is lost. It'll be a long time before someone feels confident about an extraordinary sales day, for one thing.
-
Oh God! JJRD's putting his arse on the line again:
"Now, let me be crystal clear: if you are seeing some of your recent uploads showing up in strange places at this very moment... it is simply and absolutely unacceptable.
Never was this project intended to produce that result.
I will be the one fighting first thing in the morning at HQ to have this solved... and knives will be flying.
Yes, I am putting my ass on the line here... and if I may add, I am enjoying it.
Because I care, have always cared. "
I think I'm going to vomit......
Is the code written by Getty?
-
I'm still trying to work out what it means when he says they are aiming to restore trust but not the same kind of trust as before.
How many kinds of trust are there?
-
I'm still trying to work out what it means when he says they are aiming to restore trust but not the same kind of trust as before.
How many kinds of trust are there?
On iStock, editorial is really editorial-lite (TM, sjlocke)
So maybe 'Stock trust = 'trust-lite'.
-
LOL @ Trust-lite :D
-
Finally caught up on this thread. Missed the part about the PP royalties being tied to RC even though their downloads aren't.
-
Yep they Banned Curt Pickens. Yep thats me !! Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. I need a break from that caompany anyhow. Now to do more research on other sites.
Wow. Sorry to hear that Curt. You were one of the few left willing to point out when the emperor was wearing no clothes.
Glad to have you over here though :)
-
Apparently new uploads are no longer automatically available for EL. If I could find my control panel I would re-select ELs for my whole port every time I got new images approved.
But I have no idea where the control panel has been hidden away. Can someone tell me? Thanks!
-
@Curt
my sympathies. But most forum bans are temporary, they are more of a time out to take a step back and refocus. The world is bigger than istock :-)
Also keep in mind that the istock forums are very diverse and not everyone has the same type of humour. Some artists are extremely sensitive and read "critical" language as strong insults, not just on istock, but on themselves. They will then complain to the moderators. Other contributors, especially those with poorer English language skills, will just avoid the forums alltogether if they see "all that emotion". And it is not just the exclusives that withdraw. I live in Germany so the very direct "in your face talk" suits me fine, but people from other countries or cultures react differently.
Moderators have to find a balance to allow as many people as possible to take part in the forums. Plus itīs a company forum, not a free for all student board.
FWIW, I hope you have fun here in the meantime and can get in touch with Lobo, when the time is right.
-
Totally agree with Leontura with regards to Istock new search: :(
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=19 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=19)
"Illustration of a mod boy who drive an italian motor scooter smoking a cigarette" is now higher for "London" than a high selling London skyline. There is nothing London in that image. Even a Chicago skyline is higher. I find it hard to believe that this was tested properly." :( :( :(
-
*Yadayadayada...*
What is important to realize is that today's release is the most important change we ever made to how iStockphoto serves files to clients, all over the world.
And what is critical to understand is that we always keep a severe and rational eye on Best Match with the interests of contributors and clients alike. We are all in this together and we want to assist you in licensing as many relevant assets as possible... for the benefit of all involved.
The new code that we released today is faster and more robust... most of you should be able to realize that even at this very early stage. What is critical to understand here is that it is 100% scalable and will adapt, over time, to the needs of the clients. And what is good for iStockphoto clients is ultimately good for us as a community of contributing artists.
*Yadayadayadayada sniff sniff small violin*
The most important change ever made at istock on how to serve files, but not important enough to communicate with us in advance!?!
The mob got angry again, quick lets post some soothing tearjerking words?
*yaaaawn* its getting really old. Putting your ass on the line is waaaaaay overdue mista JJ.
-
Apparently new uploads are no longer automatically available for EL. If I could find my control panel I would re-select ELs for my whole port every time I got new images approved.
But I have no idea where the control panel has been hidden away. Can someone tell me? Thanks!
The UI on this is abysmal. I always have a hard time finding it. On the bottom left, click My Account, then select Preferences from the menu, then click on the My uploads tab. Near the bottom there are all-on all-off buttons for ELs.
Deep Meta just applies this preference to every upload. Very handy given the site's busted. I do all my keywording in Photoshop, but let DM read it and then disambiguate there. Even for an independent, it might be a time saver.
-
^Send a mail to contributor relations.
Different note, I just had some files rejected as editorial that said I should remove logos and resubmit as regular RF but the photos were of paintings that I think are not nearly old enough to be public domain, what am I supposed to make of that? It's funny after all the images of things in the public domain being rejected for copyright I get this.
I got one of these. I wrote to Scout explaining why I thought the image should be editorial, and am awaiting a reply since 13th Feb.
I believe there was someone who wrote early on in the editorial forum about an image he'd had rejected from the main collection because of IP a while back, which he submitted as editorial and was told to place it in the main collection.
I had another editorial submitted rejected saying that 'set up' photos should go to the main collection. Well, firstly, it wasn't a set up photo, essentially it was a grab shot, in that I was photographing a friend casually (I guess consensual candid' would cover it) when her husband, who was also photographing her, shouted her name and she turned and smiled. She is happy for her photo to be used in editorial, but not for other uses. Thirdly there are three Cessna planes in full view in the photo. I guess I'll need to get it released by Support and send it to Alamy.
-
But I have no idea where the control panel has been hidden away. Can someone tell me? Thanks!
The UI on this is abysmal. I always have a hard time finding it. On the bottom left, click My Account, then select Preferences from the menu, then click on the My uploads tab. Near the bottom there are all-on all-off buttons for ELs.
Deep Meta just applies this preference to every upload. Very handy given the site's busted. I do all my keywording in Photoshop, but let DM read it and then disambiguate there. Even for an independent, it might be a time saver.
Thanks JoAnn. I never would have found it without your help.
I have tried DeepMeta, but it didn't really fit well with my workflow. I am probably the only person who feels that way, but I don't want to have to upend my workflow just to accomodate Istock's idiosyncrasies.
-
@Curt
my sympathies. But most forum bans are temporary, they are more of a time out to take a step back and refocus. The world is bigger than istock :-)
Also keep in mind that the istock forums are very diverse and not everyone has the same type of humour. Some artists are extremely sensitive and read "critical" language as strong insults, not just on istock, but on themselves. They will then complain to the moderators. Other contributors, especially those with poorer English language skills, will just avoid the forums alltogether if they see "all that emotion". And it is not just the exclusives that withdraw. I live in Germany so the very direct "in your face talk" suits me fine, but people from other countries or cultures react differently.
Moderators have to find a balance to allow as many people as possible to take part in the forums. Plus itīs a company forum, not a free for all student board.
FWIW, I hope you have fun here in the meantime and can get in touch with Lobo, when the time is right.
My Ban was needed Cobalt. I said what I had to say. If they want to listen thats their prerogative. It was Lobo who canned me not JJRD. I don't think I will ever again have the need to speak to them. But time will tell. One thing for sure, there will be no apologies in any form or fashion from my end if thats what they are looking for. Any who !!! Thanks !
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url])
JJ is writing and promises to post about the search issue. I am (literally) holding my breath. I so look forward to his posts :)
JJ's posts are consistently the very definition of ... Not good. Let's just say, not good.
-
There's is also an EL Opt In-Opt Out in the home page f every contributor, near the bottom right.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url])
JJ is writing and promises to post about the search issue. I am (literally) holding my breath. I so look forward to his posts :)
He said:
"Greetings. After hours of discussions & after looking at every possible angle, the first tweaks of the actual values will be completed today, and pushed at next server sync."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=22#post6117472 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=22#post6117472)
Which means sales must be well down overall. They don't care one iota if 'my' sales or 'your' sales are down, over if the whole site's sales are down, so I guess the first iteration of the 'improvement' counts as an epic fail.
-
My previous post about this got lost in the noise it seems, so once again: check your XXL and XXXL files, there's a problem with some of them, the XXL setting appears before XS, with no pixel dimensions. It isn't just me.
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=6#post6123282 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=6#post6123282)
Yeah, it sure is interesting how iStock can so efficiently execute the clawback but has so many problems with getting the money that it owes to contributors.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url])
JJ is writing and promises to post about the search issue. I am (literally) holding my breath. I so look forward to his posts :)
Me too. When JJ posts I always touch my monitor, just to feel the warmth of his sincerity.
-
Still can't find the frickin slider, I must be blind.
But I will say the search is working better, I can enter more than one word in the main search box and then drill down with the secondary box. Too bad it took two months of pain to get his to work right.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url])
JJ is writing and promises to post about the search issue. I am (literally) holding my breath. I so look forward to his posts :)
Me too. When JJ posts I always touch my monitor, just to feel the warmth of his sincerity.
I just touch myself. Oops did I say that out loud.
-
The site is missing a lot of letters and replacing some of them with weird symbols. I guess someone didn't pay the rent.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107312[/url])
JJ is writing and promises to post about the search issue. I am (literally) holding my breath. I so look forward to his posts :)
Me too. When JJ posts I always touch my monitor, just to feel the warmth of his sincerity.
I just touch myself. Oops did I say that out loud.
Hahahahahha :D
-
The search is randomly throwing up nil results. (i.e. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
E.g. I searched on 'duck' and changed best match to Age.
No results "Tell us more".
Started again, duck, best match.
Clicked on photos, no results, "Tell us more".
This doesn't always happen. It was happening apparently randomly last night and that one again this morning.
I think I've read somewhere that a random problem is more worrying (harder to nail down and fix) than a replicable problem.
Maybe there's a random 'piss off the customers' feature thrown in to the algorithm.
-
The search is randomly throwing up nil results. (i.e. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
E.g. I searched on 'duck' and changed best match to Age.
No results "Tell us more".
Started again, duck, best match.
Clicked on photos, no results, "Tell us more".
This doesn't always happen. It was happening apparently randomly last night and that one gain this morning.
I think I've read somewhere that a random problem is more worrying (harder to nail down and fix) than a replicable problem.
Maybe there's a random 'piss off the customers' feature thrown in to the algorithm.
Well, the random "piss off the customer" feature should be very easy. We've had 2 years of beta testing on continual "piss off the contributor" feature :D
-
The search is randomly throwing up nil results. (i.e. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't...
This happened to me a lot yesterday when I was testing things. I couldn't find anything reproducible so I didn't add it to the list of bugs I stuck into the faceted search bugs post.
I also thought that when I went back one page in a search I found myself with a page of someone's portfolio I had previously been looking at, but I couldn't reproduce that either.
They don't appear to be acknowledging any of the bug posts regarding search, so I think I'm just going to leave it for a bit - feels to me as if I'm wasting my energies as they're just ignoring what they're being told about breakage anyway.
-
Deactivated files are showing in lightboxes, though unpurchasable.
E.g. here's one - the images were accepted last year, then deactivated for IP, I have reuploaded them as editorial, so two of several images are showing.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/7851533/#10c45393 (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/7851533/#10c45393)
I'll leave it like this for illustrative purposes, then I'll take them out of the lightbox in a few days. I clearly didn't think to bother to take them out of the lightbox when they were deactivated.
Might affect other people too: I saw a post in the iStock forums. I don't think they're showing in ordinary searches.
-
Deactivated files are showing in lightboxes, though unpurchasable.
E.g. here's one - the images were accepted last year, then deactivated for IP, I have reuploaded them as editorial, so two of several images are showing.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/7851533/#10c45393[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/7851533/#10c45393[/url])
I'll leave it like this for illustrative purposes, then I'll take them out of the lightbox in a few days. I clearly didn't think to bother to take them out of the lightbox when they were deactivated.
Might affect other people too: I saw a post in the iStock forums. I don't think they're showing in ordinary searches.
Yes, my deactivated images are showing that way in lightboxes as well. I would have thought that once an image is deactivated, it disappears from wherever it might be, since it doesn't show in the general search.
-
Deactivated files are showing in lightboxes, though unpurchasable.
E.g. here's one - the images were accepted last year, then deactivated for IP, I have reuploaded them as editorial, so two of several images are showing.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/7851533/#10c45393[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/7851533/#10c45393[/url])
I'll leave it like this for illustrative purposes, then I'll take them out of the lightbox in a few days. I clearly didn't think to bother to take them out of the lightbox when they were deactivated.
Might affect other people too: I saw a post in the iStock forums. I don't think they're showing in ordinary searches.
Yes, my deactivated images are showing that way in lightboxes as well. I would have thought that once an image is deactivated, it disappears from wherever it might be, since it doesn't show in the general search.
Oh, I've just realised (d'uh!) that I can't get them out of the lightbox because you can't go in and edit deactivated files.
I see there's a second thread about it in the Help forum: I noticed one a few days ago.
-
Update: it seems you can edit them if you go into MyUploads>Deactivated files
-
Looks like we've got another imminent fail looming on the horizon. Getting near the end of the first quarter and still no word on the 2012 RC targets, and according to Lobo, there is no timeline he is aware of. No timeline? Then what was "January"? And then it got pushed back to "end of the first quarter"? That sounds like a timeline to me. Though now I suspect it will be "by the end of June" and then "by September", since now, suddenly, there seems to be no timeline.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309592&page=3#post6155972 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=309592&page=3#post6155972)
-
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.
-
Perhaps they became aware how much those targets can tell about the sales performance of the different tiers.
-
Perhaps they became aware how much those targets can tell about the sales performance of the different tiers.
Yep. I'm sure when they dreamed up the RC method of reducing commissions that aspect didn't occur to them. Of course it probably didn't occur to them that sales might fall either. My downloads for this this year at IS are running at 20% below the same period in 2010 (whereas in 2010 I slightly increased over 2009). At Shutterstock my sales are 25% above 2010 figures so I don't think the issue at IS is down to competition from other contributors. If my own figures are simply reflecting the greater scheme of things could Istock possibly admit to that by reducing the RC targets by 20%? I just can't see that happening.
-
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.
Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.
-
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.
Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.
I'm guessing that's a poor exclusive speaking Halfshag. Some of them are in a very uncomfortable place right now ... and it's probably becoming more uncomfortable with every month that passes. It can't be helping if Istock have reduced their marketing too.
-
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.
Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.
I'm guessing that's a poor exclusive speaking Halfshag. Some of them are in a very uncomfortable place right now ... and it's probably becoming more uncomfortable with every month that passes. It can't be helping if Istock have reduced their marketing too.
Could well be gostwyck. Agency quality is a big deal to most of us and iStock falls way short in my opinion. Expect criticism woo-yayers, especially here.
-
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.
Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.
I'm guessing that's a poor exclusive speaking Halfshag. Some of them are in a very uncomfortable place right now ... and it's probably becoming more uncomfortable with every month that passes. It can't be helping if Istock have reduced their marketing too.
Or an iStock admin going incognito. Lobo, is that you? LOL
-
Perhaps they became aware how much those targets can tell about the sales performance of the different tiers.
Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.
I'd like to add a very enthusiastic +1 to both of those statements.
Good thing nobody is forced to come here and read these forums if they don't like what they see. And wow, even an ignore button if you find a particular member annoying. :)
On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.
-
On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.
We should start a betting pool. :D
-
On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.
We should start a betting pool. :D
;D
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.
-
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.
And on a Friday.
-
On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.
But how are we going to strive to achieve our next "target" that we have been set if we aren't told what it is until the game's over? ;D
-
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.
And on a Friday.
No, probably Thursday so they can release a post on Friday (one minute before the office closes) that they will release an explanation on the following Monday, which will be delayed by "the huge amount of inquiries from contributors" so they have to postpone it to Tuesday in order "to get it right". Lobo will take the heat and keep banning people as usual.
Next.
-
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.
And on a Friday.
Right before they announce they are all going on a three week paid vacation.
-
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.
Awwww... did someone's feelings get hurt?
-
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.
And on a Friday.
Right before they announce they are all going on a three week paid vacation.
Leaving the site unsecured....
-
The thing is, these targets could be motivating for some and demotivating for others. If some see that they could reach the next target they could beaver away, competing with other suppliers for the few spaces at the higher rate - and to make 'them' more money, of course.
If some see, realisitically, that they are very unlikely to reach the higher rate, whatever stage they're at, they could just say, what.
They were far better having people co-operating to raise each other.
-
Dumb question (not that it would affect me anymore ;)):
Why do you believe Istock's setting of the RC targets tells anything about their sales performance?
-
Dumb question (not that it would affect me anymore ;)):
Why do you believe Istock's setting of the RC targets tells anything about their sales performance?
Because it was designed to produce a fixed percentage of profit and therefore only a certain percentage of contributors can be at each commission level. If average sales were to rise and they didn't increase the targets then more contributors would qualify for higher commissions. However ... if sales were to fall ... then fewer and fewer contributors will be able to sustain their own commission levels ... unless they adjust the targets accordingly. That's why RC targets were 'generously' reduced at the end of the year __ because the original sales projections turned out to be over-optimistic.
-
That sounds too logical to be true. We're still talking of Istock, aren't we? :P
I think they will only lower the targets when they are afraid they could lose too much support from their contributors, probably looking only at a very tight selection of (top) contributors.
So I think it's a big step to conclude that tells something about overall sales levels. As far as I can tell all those target setting is a big black box nobody outside of Istock knows anything about.
Maybe it tells less about how sales numbers developed compared to their projection but more how contributor reactions developed compared to their projection...
But of course that could be all wrong as well.
-
Because it was designed to produce a fixed percentage of profit and therefore only a certain percentage of contributors can be at each commission level. If average sales were to rise and they didn't increase the targets then more contributors would qualify for higher commissions. However ... if sales were to fall ... then fewer and fewer contributors will be able to sustain their own commission levels ... unless they adjust the targets accordingly. That's why RC targets were 'generously' reduced at the end of the year __ because the original sales projections turned out to be over-optimistic.
Exactly. Great explanation :)
It seems pretty obvious that RC targets will be connected to sales levels. Not sure why that should even be up for debate?
-
AUDIT! AUDIT! AUDIT!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1)
That guy is lucky he found his photo in use. Makes me wonder how many others this is happening to and they don't even know it.
-
AUDIT! AUDIT! AUDIT!
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1[/url])
That guy is lucky he found his photo in use. Makes me wonder how many others this is happening to and they don't even know it.
Wow. Really scary. As is this comment:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=310482&messageid=6162042 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=310482&messageid=6162042)
Hope Sean will post when he finds out what's up with his $0 sale.
-
Because it was designed to produce a fixed percentage of profit and therefore only a certain percentage of contributors can be at each commission level. If average sales were to rise and they didn't increase the targets then more contributors would qualify for higher commissions. However ... if sales were to fall ... then fewer and fewer contributors will be able to sustain their own commission levels ... unless they adjust the targets accordingly. That's why RC targets were 'generously' reduced at the end of the year __ because the original sales projections turned out to be over-optimistic.
Exactly. Great explanation :)
It seems pretty obvious that RC targets will be connected to sales levels. Not sure why that should even be up for debate?
Except that it could be to opposite :]. They may have targets in $ instead of %. Which would require moving the targets up in case of lower sales to get the overall % down and hit the $ target.
Uhhh....
-
Wow. Really scary. As is this comment:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=310482&messageid=6162042[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=310482&messageid=6162042[/url])
Hope Sean will post when he finds out what's up with his $0 sale.
It's my understanding that the $0 royalty issue has been going on for a while. Or maybe his $0 sale was a promo item or deeply discounted credits. ;)
-
There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until the end of March.
I've often wondered what happens if someone gets a free image via, e.g. free credits from a Moo card. Do they show up as $0 sales. I can't remember ever reading of anyone that happened to (probably because most people wouldn't be able to work out how to get the free sale!)
-
AUDIT! AUDIT! AUDIT!
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1[/url])
That guy is lucky he found his photo in use. Makes me wonder how many others this is happening to and they don't even know it.
I'm starting to feel good that I only have 300 files on istock...
-
There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until the end of March.
Really? It's never sold at all (apparently) in 15 months on IS but as soon as it gets to Getty it sells almost immediately. Possible but hardly likely.
Considering that Istock can't even build a secure site or a working search engine and simply gave up attempting to produce real-time statistics 3 years ago ... why would anyone assume that their sales reporting system was particularly robust? Istock have got plenty of form when it comes to accounting 'errors' that just happen to be in their favour ... but not so much the other way.
I'm surprised the OP hasn't yet contacted the magazine to find out where and when they bought the license.
-
There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until the end of March.
Really? It's never sold at all (apparently) in 15 months on IS but as soon as it gets to Getty it sells almost immediately. Possible but hardly likely.
Considering that Istock can't even build a secure site or a working search engine and simply gave up attempting to produce real-time statistics 3 years ago ... why would anyone assume that their sales reporting system was particularly robust? Istock have got plenty of form when it comes to accounting 'errors' that just happen to be in their favour ... but not so much the other way.
I'm surprised the OP hasn't yet contacted the magazine to find out where and when they bought the license.
Oh, I'm not defending iStock. Just the possibilities.
I believe from hearsay that if CE are looking into it, they ask you not to contact them yourself.
Of course, it could just as easily be that it is a genuine sale which hasn't been reported to the tog.
-
Oh, I'm not defending iStock. Just the possibilities.
I believe from hearsay that if CE are looking into it, they ask you not to contact them yourself.
Of course, it could just as easily be that it is a genuine sale which hasn't been reported to the tog.
Of course if the OP does not contact the magazine, and lets 'CE' handle themselves, then if it turns out to be an IS mistake ... a sale could subsequently be 'generated' at Getty to make the issue conveniently disappear. He needs to find out the truth for himself.
-
There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until
I don't know, the OP, later in the thread said he doesn't think it's a Getty sale. I hope he let's everyone know the outcome, provided he's not required to sign and NDA. ::)
-
There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until
I don't know, the OP, later in the thread said he doesn't think it's a Getty sale. I hope he let's everyone know the outcome, provided he's not required to sign an NDA. ::)
Actually, I suspect, based on my interpretation of what I have/haven't been told about a couple of previous 'irregularities' (i.e. when it turned out an image had been misused) but don't know, that they have to sign one.
-
The zero dollar sale is that for some stupid reason they round down sales reports on their GI Sales page, and it was an under a dollar royalty - probably a $5 sale for web or whatever.
One would hopefully assume the correct payment is in the account.
-
The zero dollar sale is that for some stupid reason they round down sales reports on their GI Sales page, and it was an under a dollar royalty - probably a $5 sale for web or whatever.
One would hopefully assume the correct payment is in the account.
The OP in that thread's image was found in a print magazine, though.
-
I wasn't talking about the magazine shot. I was answering Lisa.
-
Is this one of the images that was stolen in the recent credit card scam? It may be that those images are now being sold somewhere else and the magazine bought it innocently thinking that it was a legitimate sale.
-
Is this one of the images that was stolen in the recent credit card scam? It may be that those images are now being sold somewhere else and the magazine bought it innocently thinking that it was a legitimate sale.
In that case wouldn't it have still registered as a 'sale' and wouldn't the OP have been notified and indeed noticed when the sale came through and/or was removed from earnings. It is a Vetta image after all.
-
The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."
-
Is this one of the images that was stolen in the recent credit card scam? It may be that those images are now being sold somewhere else and the magazine bought it innocently thinking that it was a legitimate sale.
In that case wouldn't it have still registered as a 'sale' and wouldn't the OP have been notified and indeed noticed when the sale came through and/or was removed from earnings. It is a Vetta image after all.
Duh, of course.
-
The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."
The OP better check who is listed as the copyright holder to the image over on Getty. It's my understanding that many of the images over on Getty have someone different than the photographer listed, so who even knows who is getting paid! I know someone who has "Ocean Photography" listed as the copyright holder to their images. Who (or what) the heck is Ocean Photography and why would Getty replace the real copyright holder with that name?
-
The zero dollar sale is that for some stupid reason they round down sales reports on their GI Sales page, and it was an under a dollar royalty - probably a $5 sale for web or whatever.
One would hopefully assume the correct payment is in the account.
Thanks for explaining. I admit, I haven't been following the issue on the IS forums, so I didn't know this.
Am I correct in assuming that this is a sale of a Vetta or Agency file, through Getty? And it netted you less than $1?
-
The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."
Ah. Thanks for the update Liz. :) I'm relieved to know that. Guess I will continue to assume all sales are being recorded until/unless I hear otherwise.
-
on getty themselves copyright is correct. It is some of their many partner sites that are worrying photographers. And it is possible to have instant sales on getty. Even with only one image on getty when I started I had an instant sale, although it went online at the end of the month.
I like the sales on getty, for me it works well. But getting images in has become very difficult. That is why many istocker prefer to take the Vetta/agency route.
-
The zero dollar sale is that for some stupid reason they round down sales reports on their GI Sales page, and it was an under a dollar royalty - probably a $5 sale for web or whatever.
One would hopefully assume the correct payment is in the account.
Thanks for explaining. I admit, I haven't been following the issue on the IS forums, so I didn't know this.
Am I correct in assuming that this is a sale of a Vetta or Agency file, through Getty? And it netted you less than $1?
Yeah, score! It's a 200x100 pix or something.
-
It is some of their many partner sites that are worrying photographers.
How can they do this?
-
The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."
The OP better check who is listed as the copyright holder to the image over on Getty. It's my understanding that many of the images over on Getty have someone different than the photographer listed, so who even knows who is getting paid! I know someone who has "Ocean Photography" listed as the copyright holder to their images. Who (or what) the heck is Ocean Photography and why would Getty replace the real copyright holder with that name?
yep, some of mine are there. this, in spite of the fact that I canceled my Getty contract a few months ago. all my getty files are still at getty and 4 or 5 of them are at Veer under the "ocean photography" label. however, I found them using my name in the search, so I'm given credit somewhere apparently.
-
More iStock logo program failin'. Still no hint of a lauch date. I like how the logo admin says "the logo program can't exist" without the contributors. Is it too obvious to point out, that the logo program actually doesn't really exist? I feel bad for all the people who submitted. Making logos takes a lot of time, and from what I've seen of the submission process, iStock doesn't make it any easier.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&page=1#post6174672 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&page=1#post6174672)
-
More iStock logo program failin'. Still no hint of a lauch date. I like how the logo admin says "the logo program can't exist" without the contributors. Is it too obvious to point out, that the logo program actually doesn't really exist? I feel bad for all the people who submitted. Making logos takes a lot of time, and from what I've seen of the submission process, iStock doesn't make it any easier.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&page=1#post6174672[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&page=1#post6174672[/url])
this is the one I just don't get. Why has it been delayed so long? I'm glad I never got around to submitting again after my initial upload. what a waste.
-
Interested in the comment about the sitting logos becoming outdated.
Also, why don't they just explain why they can't bring logos live? There must be some reason, presumably legal (?).
OK, that would be a bit logical, for there to be an actual 'good reason'.
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582)
"While its true that we indeed plan, very thoroughly, future developments and improvements for the year ahead, it's also necessary that we are able to shift our development focus if the need arises. The past year has seen significant changes in iStock (F5 being one of many) in our effort to fortify our position in the marketplace and make things better for everyone, our contributors and customers alike."
Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the development resources planned to be used to implement the logo program got sucked into F5 and other stuff, and rather than hire more staff, they delayed the logo program.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582[/url])
"While its true that we indeed plan, very thoroughly, future developments and improvements for the year ahead, it's also necessary that we are able to shift our development focus if the need arises. The past year has seen significant changes in iStock (F5 being one of many) in our effort to fortify our position in the marketplace and make things better for everyone, our contributors and customers alike."
Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the development resources planned to be used to implement the logo program got sucked into F5 and other stuff, and rather than hire more staff, they delayed the logo program.
Then the logo program will never be launched. The site is such a mess I find it hard to believe it would ever get fixed. I wonder how many people are still submitting logos to that dead horse (aside from the few that are still submitting to the challenges).
The other thing about the logos that I've seen that I wonder about is how they are even going to have a market. Some of them are *so* specific that I can't see them fitting too many businesses. I thought the whole point was to create something general.
-
Then the logo program will never be launched. The site is such a mess I find it hard to believe it would ever get fixed. I wonder how many people are still submitting logos to that dead horse (aside from the few that are still submitting to the challenges).
The other thing about the logos that I've seen that I wonder about is how they are even going to have a market. Some of them are *so* specific that I can't see them fitting too many businesses. I thought the whole point was to create something general.
Funny thing is that almost all designers, who represent most of Istock's customers and a great many of their contributors too, were venomously against the idea when it was first announced.
No other microstock agency has bothered to dip their toe in the logo market either. Presumeably because it is considered too small to bother with.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582[/url])
"While its true that we indeed plan, very thoroughly, future developments and improvements for the year ahead, it's also necessary that we are able to shift our development focus if the need arises. The past year has seen significant changes in iStock (F5 being one of many) in our effort to fortify our position in the marketplace and make things better for everyone, our contributors and customers alike."
Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the development resources planned to be used to implement the logo program got sucked into F5 and other stuff, and rather than hire more staff, they delayed the logo program.
Then the logo program will never be launched. The site is such a mess I find it hard to believe it would ever get fixed. I wonder how many people are still submitting logos to that dead horse (aside from the few that are still submitting to the challenges).
The other thing about the logos that I've seen that I wonder about is how they are even going to have a market. Some of them are *so* specific that I can't see them fitting too many businesses. I thought the whole point was to create something general.
and very interesting - is this post that refers to a logo design site, Brandstack.com (surprised it hasn't been deleted or edited yet):
Posted By iskenderus:
I'm a graphic designer but especially I'm good at logo design, some of my logo designs are published in Rockports books about logo design. But, I could just upload only one here, then I saw the uploaded logos which contributors placed in this forum. They were I say very bad, its my opinion, if it will go that way my foresight is that iStockLogo will not be famous, because it will sell out of fashion logos which where popular in 2000th, and with quality it will not pass Brandstack.com for example. Thats why I stopped contributing logos, if I'd be wrong I'll start contributing.
they are selling logos there for $250 to $250,000 (USD - not a typo!) and the site only keeps15% while the designer/seller gets 85% of the sales price. seems like a much better deal than the istock one which will presumably sell for 100 to 1,000 credits - though I'm not clear what the percentage of that is for the designer with all the royalty changes lately, but I am pretty sure there is a snowball's chance in hell that it will be 85%.
-
I submitted 3 logos initially for a test run. Nothing fancy, just mid-level work to test the waters. I pulled them around the 1 year anniversary of nothing happening. So ridiculous.
-
they are selling logos there for $250 to $250,000 (USD - not a typo!) and the site only keeps15% while the designer/seller gets 85% of the sales price. seems like a much better deal than the istock one which will presumably sell for 100 to 1,000 credits - though I'm not clear what the percentage of that is for the designer with all the royalty changes lately, but I am pretty sure there is a snowball's chance in hell that it will be 85%.
I don't think the BrandStock logos sell all that much. I see pretty much the same logos on there every time I go to that site. Besides, who would want to buy a stock logo for anything over $500? It's ludicrous to think someone would spend $250k on a STOCK LOGO. For that kind of money, you could most definitely afford the entire process of getting a custom logo.
I think iStock's deal with the logo program is supposed to be 50/50, but I could be wrong. Of course, that will probably be changed if it ever gets launched. If they reduce the commission before then they will completely stop the slow trickle of submissions.
-
I didn't read this thread for a while, then when I caught up I saw something about links to people's lightboxes not working from their blogs. So I checked the links to personal lightboxes on my file_closeup pages and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was broken. Hundreds of files had to be fixed manually, because they changed the way that the text and tags in the description are translated into HTML.
-
It's a program that should have been shut down long ago, and resources invested elsewhere.
-
It's a program that should have been shut down long ago, and resources invested elsewhere.
agreed. at this point it just seems like they are stringing along those few who are still contributing to their work into the black hole.
-
I didn't read this thread for a while, then when I caught up I saw something about links to people's lightboxes not working from their blogs. So I checked the links to personal lightboxes on my file_closeup pages and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was broken. Hundreds of files had to be fixed manually, because they changed the way that the text and tags in the description are translated into HTML.
Oh wow. Are they going to put in a fix, or are they really expecting us to go in and fix them ourselves? I might fix the dozen or so on the blog page, but not on 6k+ files.
FWIW, my older links, that were linked to search terms instead of lightboxes are all working. Guess I will go back to linking that way on newly uploaded files.
-
I didn't read this thread for a while, then when I caught up I saw something about links to people's lightboxes not working from their blogs. So I checked the links to personal lightboxes on my file_closeup pages and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was broken. Hundreds of files had to be fixed manually, because they changed the way that the text and tags in the description are translated into HTML.
Oh wow. Are they going to put in a fix, or are they really expecting us to go in and fix them ourselves? I might fix the dozen or so on the blog page, but not on 6k+ files.
FWIW, my older links, that were linked to search terms instead of lightboxes are all working. Guess I will go back to linking that way on newly uploaded files.
Murphy's Law: as soon as you do that, the search will links will get changed. ;)
-
...
Oh wow. Are they going to put in a fix, or are they really expecting us to go in and fix them ourselves? I might fix the dozen or so on the blog page, but not on 6k+ files.
...
6k files ... good gravy.
The way they messed up the links is bizarre ... it looks like they tried to insert an HTML line break tag in the middle of the thumbnail image location when they generated HTML from the file description code "(url)lightbox_link(img)lightbox_thumbnail(/img)(/url)" The whole thing is wrapped in "div" tags that I'm not sure were there before and which frankly I don't understand.
The result is a broken image icon but with a functioning link (not that anyone would click on a broken-looking link, especially if the words "more like this" were in the image).
I fixed it by removing the line breaks from within the construction "(url)lightbox_link(img)lightbox_thumbnail(/img)(/url)". If the whole construction is entered as one continuous line then it appears to be OK (until the next time they take a whack at "fixing" their code). This is obviously a nightmare to fix manually when you have 1000s of files. Probably half a day's work at least, and not very pleasant work either.
-
It's a program that should have been shut down long ago, and resources invested elsewhere.
But would that not mean Paulywood would be out of a job. He seems like a nice guy who is just trying to tow the company line. It took almost a week for him to answer in the thread about what is taking so long.
The logo program is dead but they are keeping it on life support, why??
-
But would that not mean Paulywood would be out of a job. He seems like a nice guy who is just trying to tow the company line. It took almost a week for him to answer in the thread about what is taking so long.
LOL. He was probably trying to get a straight answer from someone at HQ. I feel bad for him. Every day he must wonder if this is the day he is going to be out of a job. He does seem like a nice guy and he's obviously trying his best to keep the enthusiasm going, but iStock's given him an impossible task, like so many of the other lackeys.
-
Looks like Customer Service are far too busy to bother themselves ... with servicing those annoying customers;
"hi! 3 days ago I wanted to purchase 600 credits, but instead bought 1200. The receipt stated that I have the right to a full refund within 14 days if I haven't used any of the credits. I immediately sent a tickets requesting a refund, a 3 comments to that ticket since then, but no one has got back to me in three days.
What do you think, are Istockphoto guys ever going to respond to my ticket? I cannot wait like this forever!
Has anyone has a similar experience? This is really unfair and unprofessional from them!!"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=318222&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=318222&page=1)
-
Looks like Customer Service are far too busy to bother themselves ... with servicing those annoying customers;
"hi! 3 days ago I wanted to purchase 600 credits, but instead bought 1200. The receipt stated that I have the right to a full refund within 14 days if I haven't used any of the credits. I immediately sent a tickets requesting a refund, a 3 comments to that ticket since then, but no one has got back to me in three days.
What do you think, are Istockphoto guys ever going to respond to my ticket? I cannot wait like this forever!
Has anyone has a similar experience? This is really unfair and unprofessional from them!!"
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=318222&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=318222&page=1[/url])
Hmmm, that is bad. For years after I started, there was always a note on the 'contact us' saying tickets could take four days, and to phone for quick assistance. I see the note is gone now, so they could expect a quicker answer - although the 'contact us' page does say to take out a ticket out of office hours, so the suggestion is still there that they should phone for an immediate reply during office hours.
IME, only a few companies get back on emails right away: some never.
-
Gee, nice responses on that thread. "Calm down, it's the weekend"? Really? Well, some of us work over the weekends, unlike the folks in Calgary. Besides, the guy says he contacted support three days ago. Now he's got to wait 6 or more? Such sh*tty customer service. iStock only cares about money, not the people who actually *pay* them the money.
-
"Calm down, it's the weekend"?
Seriously?
Don't they realise that with commission cuts many of us have to work seven days a week just to keep afloat?
-
I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place. Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun). But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter.
Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content". Just lovely.
And before anyone jumps down my throat for being a prude: I have a lot of kids in my portfolio, and they and their parents often drop by the site to check on how their images are selling.
-
"Calm down, it's the weekend"?
Seriously?
Don't they realise that with commission cuts many of us have to work seven days a week just to keep afloat?
I guess if HQ can take the weekend off they think everyone else can too.
-
I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place. Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun). But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter.
Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content". Just lovely.
That's probably a "feature" not a "bug". :D
-
I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place. Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun). But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter.
Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content". Just lovely.
Unbelievable. It does seem that everytime they try to 'fix' one thing they end up breaking two other functions in the process.
I wonder just how long the 'Epic Fail' list would be by now if anyone had had the energy and marathon-like stamina required to maintain it. Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' would look like a pamphlet in comparison.
-
I wonder just how long the 'Epic Fail' list would be by now if anyone had had the energy and marathon-like stamina required to maintain it. Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' would look like a pamphlet in comparison.
No argument here!
Apparently this is a known bug already reported in the bug thread. How is anyone supposed to keep up with all the bugs, glitches, and outright F*$#kups?
-
I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place. Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun). But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter.
Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content". Just lovely.
And before anyone jumps down my throat for being a prude: I have a lot of kids in my portfolio, and they and their parents often drop by the site to check on how their images are selling.
LOL, you "crack" me up, Lisa! :D
edit: I just checked my preferences at IS...yep, it was changed to "show adult content". Magically changes, like the opt-out button. Losers.
-
LOL, you "crack" me up, Lisa! :D
;D
-
LOL, you "crack" me up, Lisa! :D
;D
Would the plumber's "crack" fall under adult content? ;)
-
^ Good one, Cas you kill me sometimes. ;D ;D :-*
-
I'm always happy when I can make someone laugh. Back at'cha. ;D :-*
-
I go to check out a fellow contributor's portfolio, and what do I see but naked women all over the place. Since my content filter has been on for YEARS, my first thought was that these had slipped through the cracks (pardon the pun). But there were so many I figured I better check the content filter.
Somewhere in the F5 fiasco, the content filter was defaulted back to "Show adult content". Just lovely.
And before anyone jumps down my throat for being a prude: I have a lot of kids in my portfolio, and they and their parents often drop by the site to check on how their images are selling.
prude. ;)
(sorry, couldn't resist!)
okay, so I checked and my contributor account was set to show adult content - I fixed that because I'm a prude too. :) then I logged into my buyer account which I haven't used for awhile--- anyhow I checked that but it was still checked for off. so that's kind of a weird and random bug if you ask me.
-
okay, so I checked and my contributor account was set to show adult content - I fixed that because I'm a prude too. :) then I logged into my buyer account which I haven't used for awhile--- anyhow I checked that but it was still checked for off. so that's kind of a weird and random bug if you ask me.
Oh good, I'm not the only one ;)
Interesting that your buyer account still had it defaulting to ON. So maybe Cas is right and it is a "feature" after all. Perhaps looking at nudie pics is a bone (sorry, couldn't resist!) they are throwing contributors to make up for the 5%-25% additional they are taking of our royalties.... ;D
-
.
-
Oh good, I'm not the only one ;)
Interesting that your buyer account still had it defaulting to ON. So maybe Cas is right and it is a "feature" after all. Perhaps looking at nudie pics is a bone (sorry, couldn't resist!) they are throwing contributors to make up for the 5%-25% additional they are taking of our royalties.... ;D
LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off. :o
-
Oh good, I'm not the only one ;)
Interesting that your buyer account still had it defaulting to ON. So maybe Cas is right and it is a "feature" after all. Perhaps looking at nudie pics is a bone (sorry, couldn't resist!) they are throwing contributors to make up for the 5%-25% additional they are taking of our royalties.... ;D
LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off. :o
I'm a none of the above and mine was switched on, when I know I had it turned off. Also, I had been using business name and in the profile it had changed to USer Name.
Not that it's a big deal for me, but for some people it might make a difference? Worth checking preferences.
-
Way to go with the customer service, iStock. Someone purchased credits a week ago, didn't receive them, and a week later still has not heard from customer support.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315352&page=1#post6187242 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315352&page=1#post6187242)
-
LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off. :o
I'm sure there must be, but my bad luck I didn't accidentally happen to run across any of those ;)
-
LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off. :o
I'm sure there must be, but my bad luck I didn't accidentally happen to run across any of those ;)
Here you go, you can thank me later:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f)
-
LOL! So are there nudie pics of men, or are we only talking women. If there are men, I might go turn that filter back off. :o
I'm sure there must be, but my bad luck I didn't accidentally happen to run across any of those ;)
Here you go, you can thank me later:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f[/url])
LOL! I could tell by the name of the photo that it wasn't going to be pretty! Thanks for the laugh nruboc!
(not exactly what I meant though :( )
-
Here you go, you can thank me later:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14993023-nerd-spa.php?st=719156f[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7008299-fat-in-office.php?st=719156f[/url])
ROFL!! Be still my heart ;D
I actually downloaded one of that hairy guy a year or two ago, where he was wearing a headset. He's hilarious!
-
Speaking of Blasts From The Past.....
They seem to have added a new term to the CV. It used to be that "job" offered the choices of "job" and "occupation". Now they've added "JOB rolling papers". LOL!!
Now THAT's a blast from my past ;D
Guess we can thank the addition of editorial for that one...
-
Perhaps they became aware how much those targets can tell about the sales performance of the different tiers.
Plus maybe they've realised how demotivating it could be for those who have no hope of rising to the next level, and they may make serious decisions about how they manage their future.
Besides, with the vagaries of the best match and the instability of the site, the unfixed bugs, the regular breaking of things that were working, who really thinks that throwing up another hundred or so images will definitely make a difference? If it was that easy (that they could just go out and shoot guaranteed high-sellers), they'd be doing it anyway, just for the income.
-
Redeemed Credit levels for next year will not be announced as promised:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319522&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319522&page=1)
Very disappointing to say the least.
-
Yea! I was waiting for it before they postponed it.
-
Woot! Someone was in the office over the weekend.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320632&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=320632&page=1)
(I noticed this without realising it last night UK time when a Vetta suddenly popped into one of my regular searches where I'd not noticed any Vettas before, and assumed it was a new file. Turned out it wasn't, but I should have realised it indicted a huge Vetta drive to the front.
As I've said before, "They've heard of customers, but want no truck with them".
This Vetta/Agency hike only shows with the slider in the middle (default). With the slider at the right, the V/A files are more mixed through, and there is a strong bias towards strong sellers.
Aren't they talking about getting rid of the sliders? (Ludicrous IMO, but seems to be welcomed by other contributors)
f so, buyers and sellers will be totally at the mercy of this sort of idiocy.
They can always opt to sort by 'age', but then they're at the mercy of keywording, which I've noticed has been very slack on new acceptances for about a month. :-(
-
Redeemed Credit levels for next year will not be announced as promised:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319522&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319522&page=1[/url])
Very disappointing to say the least.
Now nearly a month since "the first quarter of 2011" ended ... and still no news on the RC targets. What can be taking so long? Typical Istock fiasco.
-
"Video and Illustration Redeemed Credit targets for 2011 will remain the same as 2010." (Kelly Thompson)
I imagine photo's will be the same.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325962&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325962&page=1)
-
"Video and Illustration Redeemed Credit targets for 2011 will remain the same as 2010." (Kelly Thompson)
I imagine photo's will be the same.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325962&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=325962&page=1[/url])
I very much doubt that photos will be the same as for this year.
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
-
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers. Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people.
-
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers. Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people.
Sounds perfect - for them.
-
I think iStock has put themselves in a serious box. With the instability of the best match and flaky site operations they cannot predict what levels of RC's will work for the year. If they are too high then their best contributors/sellers will be hacked off. If they set them to low then they give away the farm. They cannot predict when the site will stabalize. They cannot predict what the next tweek of the best match will do for individual sales levels. The first months of this year are no vauable basis for projections at the contributor level. They have done it to themselves and are now trying to find a path forward. I suspect they will drag their feet (and already have) on any photog RC levels announcement as long as they possibly can. [returning to lurk mode]
-
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...
The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
-
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...
The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
Which micros, that actually sell at decent prices and at good volume, split 50-50 or better?
-
I think iStock has put themselves in a serious box. With the instability of the best match and flaky site operations they cannot predict what levels of RC's will work for the year. If they are too high then their best contributors/sellers will be hacked off. If they set them to low then they give away the farm. They cannot predict when the site will stabalize. They cannot predict what the next tweek of the best match will do for individual sales levels. The first months of this year are no vauable basis for projections at the contributor level. They have done it to themselves and are now trying to find a path forward. I suspect they will drag their feet (and already have) on any photog RC levels announcement as long as they possibly can. [returning to lurk mode]
I'd agree. Actually I think they probably can project future sales with some accuracy, it's just that they don't want to want to make that information public. I've got a feeling that they might even abandon the current RC scheme altogether (or at least drastically modify it) so that it will be less transparent regarding the performance of overall sales. Even taking account the commission reduction my own sales are now, month on month, over 20% down compared to 2010. With Vetta/Agency sales the picture may be healthier for exclusives but I doubt it is enough to make up the volume of previous years. Whatever the situation is they're not going to admit it.
-
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...
The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
Which micros, that actually sell at decent prices and at good volume, split 50-50 or better?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/agencies-with-fair-commissions/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/agencies-with-fair-commissions/)
-
With Vetta/Agency sales the picture may be healthier for exclusives
Don't forget that exclusive+ sales can make a significant difference too.
-
... If they set them to low then they give away the farm. ...
The only people giving away the farm on a continuing basis are the IS contributors. Nothing short of splitting revenues 50/50 will change that fact.
Which micros, that actually sell at decent prices and at good volume, split 50-50 or better?
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/agencies-with-fair-commissions/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/agencies-with-fair-commissions/[/url])
That only tells of the commission, not of the volume of sales or sales prices. 50% of very little is still very little.
-
right (havenīt said the opposite) letīs all leave the big ones and join other
-
Stockxpert was a big earner for me with a 50% commission, before they were closed down. Dreamstime has always been in the top earners and they used to be 50% but they have reduced commissions in recent years.
I think all the sites could make a healthy profit with 50% commission but it wont happen because people have shown they are now willing to accept under 20%. The extra commission would make being a microstopck contributor more profitable and would give us an incentive to work harder and make more money. I think it's similar to countries that lower their taxes. They actually increase revenues because it gives people more incentive to work. Unfortunately the sites don't think like that ::)
Just thought of another 50% site that does really well, Pond5. Hopefully they will be as good with stills as they are with footage, outselling istock for me.
-
a little OT but I had a nice one this afternoon, I had some pictures approved at FT but have found that some have a keyword not well written (not that important but it sure might help on sales) so I write to them if then can change that for me, they reply telling thatīs not possible, so I tell them, shall I remove and upload again with well written keyword?? they told me, no they will be automatically rejected because they donīt review the same files again.. what does this mean? they want to sell our pics or are we are just trying hard when they arenīt not that worried of getting more sales...
-
I got the same answer years ago - at the time of passage from v1 to v2 - when I contacted support after a few of my pictures lost all keywords. Needless to say, no one bought those untagged pictures again (two were decent sellers).
-
I think iStock has put themselves in a serious box. With the instability of the best match and flaky site operations they cannot predict what levels of RC's will work for the year. If they are too high then their best contributors/sellers will be hacked off. If they set them to low then they give away the farm. They cannot predict when the site will stabalize. They cannot predict what the next tweek of the best match will do for individual sales levels. The first months of this year are no vauable basis for projections at the contributor level. They have done it to themselves and are now trying to find a path forward. I suspect they will drag their feet (and already have) on any photog RC levels announcement as long as they possibly can. [returning to lurk mode]
Seems like their constant tinkering with the website and trying to manipulate the numbers is backfiring.
-
With istock's latest announcement to try and suck non-exclusives back in, with the "promise" of making them more money by locking their photos in for 6 months with the Photo+ program, just thought this thread should be resurrected to remind everyone of all the FAILS of istock.
-
the "promise" of making them more money by locking their photos in for 6 months with the Photo+ program...
Um...huh? Where can I see this announcement?
[update] Never mind, I see the other thread.
-
The 'discussion' regarding Kelly's CNET interview has been curtly locked by Joyze, suggesting that we discuss the wonders of PNG instead;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328488&page=7 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328488&page=7)
I think we can safely say, from a PR and contributor relations perspective, that Kelly's interview graduated with distinction as an 'Epic Fail'.
-
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250)
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
-
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url])
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
Incredible.
It seems like nobody from IS staff feels concerned by this kind of problems. How many of us haven't been payed without knowing it? Is this another bug or another way to make more profit?
-
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url])
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
Incredible.
It seems like nobody from IS staff feels concerned by this kind of problems. How many of us haven't been payed without knowing it? Is this another bug or another way to make more profit?
I mentioned once, long ago, that we actually don't have a way to really find out if some agencies cheat us, and I got almost sent to a guillotine by some people. And I said that the only way to notice this kind of cheating is to find an image that's been published, but it doesn't have any downloads.
Let's hope it's just a February sale that will be reported among march sales.
-
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url])
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
Incredible.
It seems like nobody from IS staff feels concerned by this kind of problems. How many of us haven't been payed without knowing it? Is this another bug or another way to make more profit?
I think the reason that it seems like nobody at IS cares is because at this point they really don't care. I'm sure morale there is extremely low, they get angry calls from customers all day, they get badgered in the forums by contributors. I have to imagine it's not a very pleasant place to work at the moment. And in that kind of environment and with so many fires to tend to and extinguish, everything just falls through the cracks.
-
I think the reason that it seems like nobody at IS cares is because at this point they really don't care. I'm sure morale there is extremely low, they get angry calls from customers all day, they get badgered in the forums by contributors. I have to imagine it's not a very pleasant place to work at the moment. And in that kind of environment and with so many fires to tend to and extinguish, everything just falls through the cracks.
From what we are led to believe though (in forum posts from a couple admins - rogermexico & JJRD), is that everyone loooooves working there and that the attrition rate is very low. Yeppers. ;)
-
Does Getty's invoicing actually work the same way as iSTock's? On Alamy a sale can take months to get reported and longer to get cleared. Do we know if Getty waits until it gets paid before reporting a sale? If so, delays of several months could be normal.
-
Does Getty's invoicing actually work the same way as iSTock's? On Alamy a sale can take months to get reported and longer to get cleared. Do we know if Getty waits until it gets paid before reporting a sale? If so, delays of several months could be normal.
On the thread people would have thought it would have been paid by now. I think someone mentioned a two month delay and the photo sold in February, apparently.
-
Does Getty's invoicing actually work the same way as iSTock's? On Alamy a sale can take months to get reported and longer to get cleared. Do we know if Getty waits until it gets paid before reporting a sale? If so, delays of several months could be normal.
It's possible, but if so, you'd think that echodelta or asylumdown would just explain that simple piece of information. Or you'd think other people would have had the same issue and they could chip in.
-
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers. Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people.
Very true but they will likely leave them the same so we all take another pay cut...that's simply been their M.O. for nearly a year.
-
Does Getty's invoicing actually work the same way as iSTock's? On Alamy a sale can take months to get reported and longer to get cleared. Do we know if Getty waits until it gets paid before reporting a sale? If so, delays of several months could be normal.
It's possible, but if so, you'd think that echodelta or asylumdown would just explain that simple piece of information. Or you'd think other people would have had the same issue and they could chip in.
I'm not sure about other people knowing about it, you need to find the photo in use and know that it hasn't been sold anywhere else in order to find out that a GI sale credit is due. The odds of that happening are quite slim.
-
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers. Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people.
Very true but they will likely leave them the same so we all take another pay cut...that's simply been their M.O. for nearly a year.
I'm still worried that they'll move some of the levels up.
I'd guess that they'll leave the top tiers the same but those of us down the bottom might get another kick in the "donkey".
-
The deal for video and vector was part of the incentive to get contributors to opt in to Vetta. There is no such deal for photographers. Right now they won't even give us a date for when they'll announce the photo targets.
Honestly, I don't see how they could leave the targets the same for photographers. Downloads seem to be in steep decline there for many, many people.
Very true but they will likely leave them the same so we all take another pay cut...that's simply been their M.O. for nearly a year.
I'm still worried that they'll move some of the levels up.
I'd guess that they'll leave the top tiers the same but those of us down the bottom might get another kick in the "donkey".
Well, if it went that way it'd be two kicks from that donkey. Meeting current 2010 RC levels will be tough for a lot of people because their images are buried in the search. That equals less credits spent on your work (less doe). So for them to raise the RC levels based on reduced credit spend overall would be a slap in the face...again and a kick in the bean sack to boot (for us men, anyhow:))
-
JoAnn posted this in the Vector Vetta Rebellion thread, but looks like it qualifies for another epic fail:
This isn't generally visible because it's in the Vetta forum, but apparently they gave insufficient attention to the details of rolling out Vetta for video and illustrations.
Now the program is accepting nominations, contributors who want to participate are running into bugs that prevent them from doing that.
Trying to nominate a legacy file, they get the error "This file was previously in the Vetta Collection but it is no longer eligible for nominations" which is what you would get if you had taken a file out of Vetta and tried to nominate it again later.
Trying to nominate a new file upon upload, they get the error:
([url]http://www.friztin.com/images/vettaerror.jpg[/url])
It's hard to say if this is because they're rushing this, or it's just the typical poor quality software rollout.
-
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url])
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
Joyze has finally said she will look into the matter;
"Hey Folks, this was just brought to my attention by one of our moderators. I'm looking into this right now and will contact the contributor directly with the details."
-
This is definitely an ongoing epic fail:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=4#post6372250[/url])
More than two months and he has not been paid for his high res image downloaded from Getty. And not a single word from admins about it, publicly or privately.
Joyze has finally said she will look into the matter;
"Hey Folks, this was just brought to my attention by one of our moderators. I'm looking into this right now and will contact the contributor directly with the details."
How nice. After over two months someone finally responds. ::)
-
And let's just contrast iStock's behavior and response to that contributor's issue with a somewhat similar non-payment issue from another agency: http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/disappearing-payments-at-veer/msg200289/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/disappearing-payments-at-veer/msg200289/?topicseen#new)
-
Looks like there has been another download/no payment issue!
I just found one of mine as well in a flyer insert for well known childrens cd's. I found the link because they credit istock (and me) but i have zero downloads on the file. I sent a ticket to support.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5)
And who wants to start placing bets now that the admins will never give an answer as to what has happened?
-
Looks like there has been another download/no payment issue!
I just found one of mine as well in a flyer insert for well known childrens cd's. I found the link because they credit istock (and me) but i have zero downloads on the file. I sent a ticket to support.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5[/url])
And who wants to start placing bets now that the admins will never give an answer as to what has happened?
Ouch, that one is worrying - iStock can't pull the 'It's probably a Getty issue' card, and let it just fall between two companies who don't want to do any follow-up.
The cases were an artist happens to spot their work in use, where they know they can't have been paid for it (because it has zero registered downloads) must be just the tip of the iceberg. And then the artists who publicly raise the issue in the forums must be the tip of that iceberg :-\
A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months. Nothing I could do but presume that the company/designer must have purchased it that long ago & I did get paid for it.
-
And let's just contrast iStock's behavior and response to that contributor's issue with a somewhat similar non-payment issue from another agency:
What, you mean Veer have a whole load of people complaining of no payment, no email and no response, whereas there's 1 person at IS? I'm not saying IS's handling of things is good, just doubting the wisdom of citing somewhere that appears possibly not so good.
-
A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months.
What would be an appropriate size for a TV advert given the relatively low resolution of even, so called, HD TV images and taking into account typical viewing distances.
M? S ?
-
A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months.
What would be an appropriate size for a TV advert given the relatively low resolution of even, so called, HD TV images and taking into account typical viewing distances.
M? S ?
I might be wrong but I'd have thought medium size or above would be needed. It had been downloaded as small, which was 837 x 573 pixels for this image.
I saw on a large Sony HD TV (not mine), I think at a resolution of 1920 x 1080. Even paused using Sky+ HD, the photo did not looked like it had been upsized anything like that much.
But I'd totally accept this is not a definite case like the others mentioned above, it just seems a little odd.
And the $1.90 royalty seemed a little harsh for a nationally broadcast TV advert, but that's a totally separate issue :D
-
What was with the "Stay on topic" warning from kelvinjay. Seems to me, people talking about not being credited for downloads in a "zero downloads" thread *is* on topic. I'm sure that thread will be locked if more of that nefarious behavior comes to light.
-
You're supposed to just be talking about the missing Getty one, I guess.
-
You're supposed to just be talking about the missing Getty one, I guess.
Probably. So no posts from anyone else with other images that have sold, but show zero downloads ever gets to see the light of day.
-
You're supposed to just be talking about the missing Getty one, I guess.
Probably. So no posts from anyone else with other images that have sold, but show zero downloads ever gets to see the light of day.
got a zero download file that you have seen in action? send an email to CE and then start your very own topic/thread! :)
-
Can't believe the $0 royalty issue is still on-going too.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=6#post6375184 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=6#post6375184)
-
Wow, I hadn't read that one.
Love how it has taken the "highest priority". No...clawing back the royalties from the fraud took the highest priority and once they got their money for that, "who cares if a few contributors don't have their money?" What excuse could there possibly be for not making that right in four and a half months? None.
>:(
-
So now they are saying the issue was resolved and contributors paid, but the information never updated. Mmm hmmmm. ::)
I firmly believe that if contributors weren't being conscientious and noticing these things that they would never get paid for some of these "errors" and "bugs". It only takes someone making it public to get any attention at all. And it just makes you wonder how many things *aren't* getting noticed.
-
Lobo acknowledged that the my_uploads page wasn't updated with the amount paid. For some of these "fix" payments they update the csv (I think only in the monthly version) with a column that says "Admin adjustments" or something like that. Nothing itemized, just a lump sum for the month.
Someone else in that thread referenced my long ignored suggestion (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1) about detailed, downloadable sales (& refund) data. It's really important for contributors to have detailed records of money going in and out of our accounts.
Detailed records wouldn't stop outright fraud, but it does make mistakes easier to catch (in addition to giving us information with which to build a spreadsheet to track things).
Given that we can't get even one agency to do this, it's probably complete pie in the sky to think about an agency-wide CSV format in which they'd agree to report our data - common codes for sales, licenses, etc. so we could track all agencies without doing something specific for each one.
I'm hoping at some point some banking regulator gets hold of this mess and makes the agencies act like our money matters.
-
Lobo acknowledged that the my_uploads page wasn't updated with the amount paid. For some of these "fix" payments they update the csv (I think only in the monthly version) with a column that says "Admin adjustments" or something like that. Nothing itemized, just a lump sum for the month.
Someone else in that thread referenced my long ignored suggestion ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1[/url]) about detailed, downloadable sales (& refund) data. It's really important for contributors to have detailed records of money going in and out of our accounts.
Detailed records wouldn't stop outright fraud, but it does make mistakes easier to catch (in addition to giving us information with which to build a spreadsheet to track things).
Given that we can't get even one agency to do this, it's probably complete pie in the sky to think about an agency-wide CSV format in which they'd agree to report our data - common codes for sales, licenses, etc. so we could track all agencies without doing something specific for each one.
I'm hoping at some point some banking regulator gets hold of this mess and makes the agencies act like our money matters.
Even when they say they are "fixing" things, who even knows when contributors are getting paid the correct amount of money. I know discrepancies were noticed in the past. They really do need some kind of investigation. I don't know how you guys can stand the uncertainty and lack of trust.