MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: No more ugly lightboxes! Thank goodness.  (Read 16185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KB

« on: February 18, 2015, 13:31 »
+12
I have no idea what I was thinking, spending so many countless hours creating different lightboxes that made it easy for buyers to purchase multiple, related files of mine. But thankfully iStock / Getty has corrected my silliness, ensuring (to my relief) that my sales will indeed drop even further. I was getting worried about hitting that plateau.

And descriptions. So many ugly, worthless descriptions. No longer will buyers need to see those, either. Unfortunately, apparently, I still need to write them, for SEO purposes. Because so many of my files are purchased via Google, of course.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1794&elq=03f4b29ebc7a49738c882ae06429e4cf&elqCampaignId=5837


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2015, 14:08 »
+7
Looks clean and the larger zoom is very welcome. I find the most odd part of this the removal of visibility of descriptions.

For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.

So losing "beautiful girl twirls in the sunshine" is irrelevant, but "Palm Beach, Aruba, looking north toward Malmok Beach" conveys something a buyer might not be able to discern from the image

Losing the file sizes suggests they're really dug in on this one size idea. And the idea of additional "merchandising" on the page in the future would bother me if I had more than a handful of images left there.

The language is so ickily corporate-speak: "Please note additional content merchandising will be built out on this platform in the future.", and calling it an Asset Detail Page - our images, illustrations, video & audio are all just assets to Getty...

« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2015, 14:18 »
0
I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing? 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2015, 14:21 »
+1
For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.
And the trouble is that so many people spam the keywords. Not so many spam the description. Yesterday I found a series of files with five location keywords across two countries. The location in the description wasn't the one I'd been searching on.

« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2015, 14:22 »
+4
I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

Depends on what it is. And we don't know, but the notion that as the contributor I would have no control over whatever that was - links to other Getty properties, ads like in a Google search - is largely the source of my concern.

You're thinking that this would be something merchandising your work and increasing your income - and that would be excellent, but I'm not sure why it would need removal of other things - like description - to make it happen.

« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2015, 14:26 »
0
I guess it will just be a waiting game

« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2015, 15:26 »
+3
No mention of Light Boxes (as far as I could see) The carousel will show similar images from my portfolio based on keywords. That's ok to a point but the carousel only shows six images at a time. In a light box, I could "guide" the buyer experience and also display many more images on the screen at once for them to scan. In a niche LB with a couple hundred images, I can't see them sticking with the carousel that long.

Also, if I understand correctly, the carousel is looking for similar images based on keywords AND upload date. This means it is unlikely for them to find two great shots of a similar concept taken five years apart. In a LB, they could sort by DL's and easily find the most popular images in my portfolio based on a similar theme. I know they can still do that now by going to my portfolio, applying whatever filters and sorts they want, but that is more work. I thought the idea was to improve the buyer experience.

Having said that, I do like the cleaner look and larger image size.

« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2015, 19:52 »
0
It says "Descriptions will be de-emphasized on the page, and only shown to first time visitors", so it won't go away completely as I understand it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2015, 20:26 »
+2
It says "Descriptions will be de-emphasized on the page, and only shown to first time visitors", so it won't go away completely as I understand it.
Even that's ambiguous. Does it mean people on their very first visit to the site will see descriptions, but never again (and will presumably wonder why); or does it mean on their first click on that file (ditto)?
I wonder why they think descriptions are important to 'first time visitors', but not to anyone else.

« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2015, 22:15 »
0
I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

Depends on what it is. And we don't know, but the notion that as the contributor I would have no control over whatever that was - links to other Getty properties, ads like in a Google search - is largely the source of my concern.

You're thinking that this would be something merchandising your work and increasing your income - and that would be excellent, but I'm not sure why it would need removal of other things - like description - to make it happen.

Yeah.  The new page has links to similar but does not say similar from same artist.  Why I want them promoting somebody else's work on my pictures?  Oh sorry, they aren't my pictures.  They are Getty 'assets'.

« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2015, 23:28 »
+3
I just can't believe that buyer research revealed that buyers felt that banner-linked light boxes created by a contributor were not helpful.

« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2015, 23:29 »
0
I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?

Mugs, tank tops, t shirts, ball caps  8)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2015, 23:48 »
+2
it's math.

as their archive grows bigger and bigger over time they realize that as the number of buyers and download is stable there will be millions of images that just never sell once or that are never even displayed or zoomed once in their lifetime.

solution : find ways to mix up the search results, no matter how.

but still it does nothing to "keep the promise" of microstock which was to "sell cheap and sell many" .. at this point is just "sell cheap" apart for the top 5-10% best selling keywords.

to sell as much as in the past they should squeeze the archive to 5-10 millions pics or to deliberately "sandbox" 90% of the images that have underperformed in the last 2-3 yrs.

what's next ? merchandising ? POD ? food stamps ? it all smells of desperation to me as the root issue here is the lack or even decrease of buyers.

and even doubling the number of buyers will result in the same scenario when agencies will have 100 millions of images on sale ... again there's a math model that justifies the microstock model and either they stick with it or it just doesn't work, in particular for us suppliers.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2015, 23:53 »
+2
this is not an Istock issue, it's an industry-wide issue.

even if there was a single monolithic agency owning 100% of the market they would face the same problems over time .. oversupply and stagnant demand !

it's a zero sum game because the number of buyers is not increasing and the prices are not going up.

« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2015, 04:46 »
+1
but still it does nothing to "keep the promise" of microstock which was to "sell cheap and sell many"

The RF microstock sites are still selling at low prices and in volume.  It's the rank and file contributors who cannot expect to sell each image in volume from now on (they have to supply masses and hope that some sell a little). But a job in McDonalds would probably pay better. The best can hope to make up for that by being promoted to a higher priced boutique collection. That's where the interest and enthusiasm is. No bad thing in a way - we were wasting our lives doing mundane cut-outs :)

even if there was a single monolithic agency owning 100% of the market they would face the same problems over time .. oversupply and stagnant demand !

Oversupply is not a problem for the agencies. It reduces any potential for a pressure on costs. Really the only thing they need to care about at this point is market share. Because it is going to be all about investor sentiment assuming that Getty goes for an IPO exit - and can get there whilst the stock market is still in QE funded bonkers mode.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2015, 04:56 »
0
For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.
And the trouble is that so many people spam the keywords. Not so many spam the description. Yesterday I found a series of files with five location keywords across two countries. The location in the description wasn't the one I'd been searching on.

Honestly IStock has no one to blame but themselves for the keyword spamming on the site. The tedious disambiguation process I am sure has led to endless mis categorization. Especially now that the RPI on the site doesn't in any way justify spending several minutes per image carefully checking keyword tick boxes. Oh well, all the spam should drive more buyers away, so they will learn the hard way I guess.

« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2015, 05:23 »
0
Honestly IStock has no one to blame but themselves for the keyword spamming on the site ... all the spam should drive more buyers away

But the default search results are typically very good. Which is what matters to the subscribers. I think that iStock is working great for Getty and the subscribers.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2015, 05:50 »
+3
For some images, they don't matter, but for others, I guess the buyer has to look at the list of keywords to find out the exact location, species, etc. Seems not to be customer friendly to make it hard to read the important info for those types of images where it's important.
And the trouble is that so many people spam the keywords. Not so many spam the description. Yesterday I found a series of files with five location keywords across two countries. The location in the description wasn't the one I'd been searching on.

Honestly IStock has no one to blame but themselves for the keyword spamming on the site. The tedious disambiguation process I am sure has led to endless mis categorization. Especially now that the RPI on the site doesn't in any way justify spending several minutes per image carefully checking keyword tick boxes. Oh well, all the spam should drive more buyers away, so they will learn the hard way I guess.

At one point, in theory at least, if someone didn't DA, that keyword didn't show in the search. I can't remember if that ever worked, but sadly, it doesn't work now, AFAICS.
I totally approve of the CV in theory and don't find DAing difficult in general - but I started after it had been introduced. I can well imagine that if they introduced one at Alamy now, I'd be daunted to go through my  back catalogue (but I'd do it).
Of course it's infuriating when the DA you need isn't available, and now the 'not in the CV keyword bug' has been going on for about a year now.
I'm talking about deliberate spam. E.g. someone has a beach and tags it with many different famous beaches from all over the world, even when the surrounds are totally wrong for the site. You might get off with that if it's just a beach and sea, but any surrounding landscape is a big giveaway.Or they choose to label one species, which they have correctly identified in the description, with several others from various different families. Or they label an obvious zoo shot with all the countries the animal might be found in. Or they label an isolated apple with several different fruit names.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2015, 06:04 »
0
Oversupply is not a problem for the agencies. It reduces any potential for a pressure on costs. Really the only thing they need to care about at this point is market share. Because it is going to be all about investor sentiment assuming that Getty goes for an IPO exit - and can get there whilst the stock market is still in QE funded bonkers mode.

so why are they pushing higher priced collections ?

they're aware they're wasting a lot of talent and opportunities with their actual pricing schemes and that paying peanuts they're only going to get monkeys in return.

unfortunately they also face the reality that the demand for mid-stock is not as big to justify any sudden U-turn in their sales strategy.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2015, 06:14 »
+3
Oversupply is not a problem for the agencies. It reduces any potential for a pressure on costs. Really the only thing they need to care about at this point is market share. Because it is going to be all about investor sentiment assuming that Getty goes for an IPO exit - and can get there whilst the stock market is still in QE funded bonkers mode.
so why are they pushing higher priced collections ?
Are they?
The last I looked, they were pushing subs.

« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2015, 06:17 »
+1
they also face the reality that the demand for mid-stock is not as big to justify any sudden U-turn in their sales strategy.

I think that the main business will be the IPO and growing repeat subscriptions. I think that they will be prepared to cannibalize everything else for that.

« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2015, 06:29 »
0
I like the changes, but of course I am in the nut house and swiped the aids phone.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2015, 07:38 »
0
I am confused as to the merchandizing, isn't that a good thing?


Depends on what it is. And we don't know, but the notion that as the contributor I would have no control over whatever that was - links to other Getty properties, ads like in a Google search - is largely the source of my concern.

You're thinking that this would be something merchandising your work and increasing your income - and that would be excellent, but I'm not sure why it would need removal of other things - like description - to make it happen.


Yeah.  The new page has links to similar but does not say similar from same artist.  Why I want them promoting somebody else's work on my pictures?  Oh sorry, they aren't my pictures.  They are Getty 'assets'.

What they say: "Stock search will automate and build a similar image carousel of each contributor's content based on a combination of contributor name, upload date and similar keywords. The automated gallery helps customers more effectively access the most relevant material in a contributor's portfolio that meets the need of their project. In the event there arent any similar images in the contributor's portfolio, no carousel will be present."
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1794
Added: but then there's the mysterious 'merchandising' clause, which could mean absoutely anything.

Later still: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7084175. So indeed they are leaving the way clear for them to do that. Or anything else they randomly think up.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 11:04 by ShadySue »

« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2015, 07:58 »
0
If it works as advertised, it's a pretty good solution to getting rid of the lightbox links.

« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2015, 15:45 »
+1
The aspect of maintaining lightboxes which (used to) bring me more sales has gone. All the time spent on those has been a complete waste of time then. Pity.
The image carousel is fine by me, as long as the images are actually a) relevant and b) my images only. Most other sites have carousels too.

The bigger preview size is fine.
The download and view counters were never relevant to the customer to begin with (well, it could work both ways: 100+ downloads speaks for its quality/popularity, 0 downloads/1000 views could make a customer believe that "maybe something's wrong with the image if nobody wants it"). SS doesn't show counters either and that works just fine.

However, I don't see why descriptions should be eliminated during subsequent views, as it could contain a lot of information for the customer.

« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2015, 16:28 »
0
deleted
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 17:16 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2015, 19:40 »
-2
I like the changes and I am excited they are gearing up to move away from Flash so videos will be viewable on mobile soon. I do agree the subtraction of the description is an odd choice...but simplicity is good. My sales at iStock have been decent and steady over the past few months now, so I think they are making the right moves.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2015, 04:40 »
0
I think that the main business will be the IPO and growing repeat subscriptions. I think that they will be prepared to cannibalize everything else for that.

as much as many here are horrified by subs this is the way News images have been sold for ages on the top News agencies like AP/AFP/Reuters so it's nothing new actually.


« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2015, 04:55 »
0
I think it is a clean looking interface and has the advantage that for every image it shows more files. Many artists did not add lightbox links or linked their series, so it was inconsistent before. I also think the larger zoom is much better.

However, I do wish they would give us a proper lightbox page somewhere. Lightboxes are very useful for the customer, they can easily see everything I have to offer from a theme and can save the page so they can go back and see what is new in my collection. This is more useful than bookmarking the artist, because usally the customer will only be interested in a certain subject (i.e. wine not sports)

« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2015, 22:06 »
+3
Wait, what? They are removing descriptions? Some of these changes are quite welcome, but removing the descriptions makes no sense. Show me a website that doesn't allow contributors to write up a small blurb about their product to inform and entice buyers? Just one more dehumanizing bad decision by GI. Way to go guys. Keep up the good work.

« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2015, 14:15 »
+1
Private Lightboxes are gone now as of today. Brace yourselves on credit sales for the newest, new, new.

KB

« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2015, 19:00 »
0
Private Lightboxes are gone now as of today.
Mine are still visible and accessible. But it's just a matter of time before your statement is true for everyone.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2015, 19:04 »
0
Private Lightboxes are gone now as of today.
Mine are still visible and accessible. But it's just a matter of time before your statement is true for everyone.
Presuably what you mean is that you can see everyone's lightboxes and descriptions (as can I) because you're not part of the early rollout of the new system.

KB

« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2015, 00:42 »
0
Private Lightboxes are gone now as of today.
Mine are still visible and accessible. But it's just a matter of time before your statement is true for everyone.
Presuably what you mean is that you can see everyone's lightboxes and descriptions (as can I) because you're not part of the early rollout of the new system.
Exactly what I wrote implied.  ;D

« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2015, 00:53 »
0
All the linking to any private Lightboxes on closeup pages you might have created is gone as of yesterday. The new style of closeup page is live now.

« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2015, 07:59 »
0
Mine are still working but I know the end is near. I've stopped adding any links to new UL's. (yes, I'm still uploading....)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2015, 08:11 »
+1
All the linking to any private Lightboxes on closeup pages you might have created is gone as of yesterday. The new style of closeup page is live now.

For the 5% of people at the beginning of the rollout.
The rest of us will lose them by some time in March.
"Initially the changes will only be visible to 5% of the international community but we expect to increase this percentage over the next few weeks."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7083869
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 08:33 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2015, 08:24 »
+5
I think removal of descriptions is a huge mistake. There are a lot of very good points over there in the discussion forum, and not one reason to explain why they thought it was a good idea (other than presumably for a cleaner interface). We now have to somehow put all of the most salient information into the title which only allows a limited number of words, which Google will truncate.

I also don't see why they have a 'discussion' of it in the discussion forum if it's a fait accompli and they're not going to pay attention to input. They should just put it into the announcements forum and lock it.

OTOH, maybe it's an indication that they don't want the sort of image which benefits from a detailed explanation, and want to go back to the 'red apple isolated on white' type of image, where the short title can tell all that's needed. If so, they need to say so. They can't seriously be expecting a buyer, who is already searching within iStock (because they have credits or a subscrption there), to go out to Google to read a file description to check it's really what they need.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 08:45 by ShadySue »

« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2015, 08:33 »
0
Here it's still the old style.

« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2015, 11:40 »
0
All the linking to any private Lightboxes on closeup pages you might have created is gone as of yesterday. The new style of closeup page is live now.

Yesterday, all I got were 404 errors on any asset detail page - mine or someone elses, logged in or logged out.

Today, I'm back to the old style pages.

I assume they're having some issues with the rollout.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2015, 12:28 »
0
I've had several timeouts and the forum is again showing blank. (It was blank for a while earlier).
Search seems to be working fine, and I'm still seeing descriptions and lightboxes.
You must be in the 'favoured' 5%, Jo Ann.

« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2015, 13:56 »
+10
All the linking to any private Lightboxes on closeup pages you might have created is gone as of yesterday. The new style of closeup page is live now.

Yesterday, all I got were 404 errors on any asset detail page - mine or someone elses, logged in or logged out.

Today, I'm back to the old style pages.

I assume they're having some issues with the rollout.

Istock having technical difficulties with a new rollout!  Surely you jest!!!    ;)

« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2015, 14:55 »
0
. . . I also don't see why they have a 'discussion' of it in the discussion forum if it's a fait accompli and they're not going to pay attention to input. They should just put it into the announcements forum and lock it. . .
I often wonder about that. If something is as you say, fait accompli, as things usually are over there, there really is little point in discussion further discussion.



« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2015, 08:07 »
+4
I'd like to reiterate the fact that removing descriptions is not only inconvenient, it's a destructive decision. Take audio artists for example. Since they no longer have the possibility to guide buyers to different (short, full, looped) versions of their tracks, buyers are now on their own to find the version they want by wading through portfolios with hundreds of files. And there's no solution in sight.

Such a crazy move by Istock and it goes to show they really don't know what they're doing. Even Shutterstock has descriptions (yet no titles) and that is no example to follow. So why remove descriptions? Why deprive buyers of information about their products? Looking at the new layout, it feels like information is missing and buyers are left to guess what they're buying.

« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2015, 10:01 »
+3
It's just another step in integrating the iStock "assets" into the Getty computer systems. Eventually they need not have separate iStock IT people. All these moves are "operations efficiency" and "cost reductions" behind the scenes. Never mind the killing of useful brand features. (My opinion).

KB

« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2015, 12:18 »
+1
So my account has now switched over to the new look.

I can obviously see the attractions to this design. I especially like the huge (yet well water-marked) preview image.

But I hate, hate, hate the loss of descriptions, including the removal of LB and similars links.

And there is no similars carousel, but I guess they said that was coming "soon"?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2015, 12:32 »
+1
So my account has now switched over to the new look.

I can obviously see the attractions to this design. I especially like the huge (yet well water-marked) preview image.

But I hate, hate, hate the loss of descriptions, including the removal of LB and similars links.

And there is no similars carousel, but I guess they said that was coming "soon"?

I guess their internal algorithm didn't find any similars, which isn't at all the same as you not having similars.
I clicked one of my images and had no similars, which is true for that file. I clicked on another and had two similars, though I have more than two that I'd think should be there. remember that 'date' was one of the things they said would generate 'similars', so if someone dripped up a series, which at one time made sense, because of best match switches favouring new or older uploads from time to time, they might not be regarded as 'similar'.

Mine switched in the past hour. Why do I have to switch off that yellow cookies-warning bar with every new file I click in? Other sites you do it once for always (or at least until you do something which removes the preference).

Later: I just did a check in my own port. The time seems to have a huge effect. If I uploaded a series at once, they're all there as thums. If I have several pics of one subject (e.g. a particular species) taken at different times, the thums don't show.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 13:31 by ShadySue »

KB

« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2015, 12:58 »
+2
I guess their internal algorithm didn't find any similars, which isn't at all the same as you not having similars.
Oh. Wonderful. I had looked at several of my images that have obvious similars, and so just assumed it wasn't working yet.  :(  >:(

Edit:

Ok, so I just did a more in-depth study, looking at a dozen of my files. Only 4 of them had the similars carousel. And of those 4, just a very, very few of the similars were shown.

Epic. Fail. It is totally worthless, based on my own portfolio. It will surely have a huge affect of my sale of similars, which was probably the last thing keeping my portfolio (barely) afloat.

Great job, Getty!
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 13:07 by KB »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2015, 15:31 »
+1
"They are not showing the new ADP to the same 5% of people every day. Those who can see it varies, so we can get feedback from an array of users and systems. Don't worry if it's a case of now you see it, now you don't."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7087265

« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2015, 15:35 »
0
I can't ask on the forums, but what happens with files that have important file specific information (such as gradient meshes)? Buyers should be made aware of what contains Illustrator-specific features. What happens now that that information is removed?

« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2015, 15:41 »
0
So my account has now switched over to the new look.

I can obviously see the attractions to this design. I especially like the huge (yet well water-marked) preview image.

But I hate, hate, hate the loss of descriptions, including the removal of LB and similars links.

And there is no similars carousel, but I guess they said that was coming "soon"?

I guess their internal algorithm didn't find any similars, which isn't at all the same as you not having similars.
I clicked one of my images and had no similars, which is true for that file. I clicked on another and had two similars, though I have more than two that I'd think should be there. remember that 'date' was one of the things they said would generate 'similars', so if someone dripped up a series, which at one time made sense, because of best match switches favouring new or older uploads from time to time, they might not be regarded as 'similar'.

Mine switched in the past hour. Why do I have to switch off that yellow cookies-warning bar with every new file I click in? Other sites you do it once for always (or at least until you do something which removes the preference).

Later: I just did a check in my own port. The time seems to have a huge effect. If I uploaded a series at once, they're all there as thums. If I have several pics of one subject (e.g. a particular species) taken at different times, the thums don't show.

Oh great.  I always upload series in bits over time for the reason you said - that it covers more best match possibilities.  Also, it cuts down on the chance of rejections for similars.

If I ever bother to upload my thousand or so backlog I will  do series all together.  But with possible bankruptcy in the future I am not sure if it's a waste of time to upload more there.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2015, 15:56 »
0
I can't ask on the forums, but what happens with files that have important file specific information (such as gradient meshes)? Buyers should be made aware of what contains Illustrator-specific features. What happens now that that information is removed?

Tough, unless it's incorporatable into the title. Same with clipping paths.
Same with many other things that are really essential.
For an illustrator, another point made was "I know that that's only a vector issue, but we were able to upload additional alternate files in a zip archive, and without descriptions we won't even be able to tell the customers what they will get when they download an image. Some vector artists included different file types like png or psd, or color variations, or images with the text removed. I think this was useful information for customers, especially for those who don't know much about vector programs, and after the changes all this information will be gone."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365525&messageid=7084457

Despite many relevant points being made on that forum thread, and several requests for inforation about why they have removed descriptions, no explanation has been forthcoming.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
9384 Views
Last post November 15, 2008, 07:13
by michmac
24 Replies
7408 Views
Last post January 27, 2009, 15:26
by borg
18 Replies
7069 Views
Last post June 06, 2012, 15:17
by RacePhoto
32 Replies
8929 Views
Last post January 16, 2020, 11:27
by steheap
7 Replies
3670 Views
Last post January 09, 2021, 10:35
by MGsouth

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors