Check out the most downloaded people image on iStock: a photo of a beautiful slender woman on the beach in a bikini throwing her arms straight behind her back.  Supposedly uploaded 3 days ago by Yuri Arcurs and has already received a purple flame and 4.2 Trillion downloads....

Joy

42,000,000,000 downloads with only 17 views! That's a really impressive feat.

All numbers of Arcurs are fake�

Not 4.2 Trillion.

Just 4.2 Billion...

He probably needs the boost. IS performance might not be what expected. He still needs income from other sites as well to make it worth him while. I still have a feeling we will get a news report someday that he went bankrupt.

Quote from: joyfnp on May 22, 2014, 20:47

Check out the most downloaded people image on iStock: a photo of a beautiful slender woman on the beach in a bikini throwing her arms straight behind her back.  Supposedly uploaded 3 days ago by Yuri Arcurs and has already received a purple flame and 4.2 Trillion downloads....

Joy

What's the link to that page anymore?  I can't find it anywhere...

There was no link. It's simply, iStock - People - POPULAR

Anyway, I saved it for you:)

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/people/filetypes/photos,illustrations,video/source/basic#11136389

Ah, I thought we were talking about that "trending" page, if it still exists...

No it's this image

This means that every person on earth has this pic downloaded about 5 times   If that is not successful, then there's no success! 

If I'm seeing the same search results, what's with all the "collages" of people?  Buyers really want those?  There's that many buyers I mean to put 5 or 6 of them on the first page of the search?? 

He probably needs the boost. IS performance might not be what expected. He still needs income from other sites as well to make it worth him while. I still have a feeling we will get a news report someday that he went bankrupt.

I doubt that. The reason why many others have a bad time at IS might be because he is having a good one, because his operation is rather large 'entity'...... and it doesn't seem to be shrinking.

Quote from: topol on May 24, 2014, 08:23

Quote from: Ron on May 23, 2014, 02:40

He probably needs the boost. IS performance might not be what expected. He still needs income from other sites as well to make it worth him while. I still have a feeling we will get a news report someday that he went bankrupt.

I doubt that. The reason why many others have a bad time at IS might be because he is having a good one, because his operation is rather large 'entity'...... and it doesn't seem to be shrinking.

Its not a bug, it is a dirty way to boost Yuri's portfolio in the best match, his pictures are up in best match from a few days ago. A new way of insulting and harming the authentic Istock exclusive contributors

That's what I was saying. Yuri's stuff is big enough to shrink sales for others with his 'special placement'.

Quote from: Marta on May 24, 2014, 08:29

Quote from: topol on May 24, 2014, 08:23

Quote from: Ron on May 23, 2014, 02:40

He probably needs the boost. IS performance might not be what expected. He still needs income from other sites as well to make it worth him while. I still have a feeling we will get a news report someday that he went bankrupt.

I doubt that. The reason why many others have a bad time at IS might be because he is having a good one, because his operation is rather large 'entity'...... and it doesn't seem to be shrinking.

Its not a bug, it is a dirty way to boost Yuri's portfolio in the best match, his pictures are up in best match from a few days ago. A new way of insulting and harming the authentic Istock exclusive contributors

That's what I was saying. Yuri's stuff is big enough to shrink sales for others with his 'special placement'.

Thats what I was saying, but you doubt that was the case and now you do agree. Now I am confused 

Check out the most downloaded people image on iStock: a photo of a beautiful slender woman on the beach in a bikini throwing her arms straight behind her back.  Supposedly uploaded 3 days ago by Yuri Arcurs and has already received a purple flame and 4.2 Trillion downloads....

It's 4.2 billion, not trillion. Anyone interested how things like that happen in reality?

In a database you have to define how much "space" any given value may occupy, e.g. for a password field you can define that it may have 8 characters - anything entered into that password field above 8 characters will be cut.

For a number, you have to define the range (can it be positive or negative, can it have commas or only full values?). For the number of downloads you would certainly say "they can only be positive, whole numbers, no fractions".

Next question: How big can the number become? Here you get to choose "one byte" as the first option. That would only allow of a maximum of 256 values. So we are sure it wouldn't be sufficient. Two bytes would be good enough to store values between 0 and 65535. No file did reach that yet but then again there have been files with >20.000 downloads and database storage is supposed to stay untouched "forever". So it couldn't be good enough.

So the next "best" thing would be four bytes - this allows to store numbers up to 4,294,967,295 (four bytes = 32 bits, enter 2^32 in Google to get that value). Sounds familiar? In iStock's context, this would be shortened for the public to only show the first two digits, so ">4,200,000,000"

So, how does a file get to that number? Easiest way is to screw up the programming by having two processes doing opposite things but program them in different ways.

A potential example of this type of screwing up: Download a file, then the download counter is raised from 0 to 1... download it again because the server didn't work right, this time (it's a re-download) the download counter does not rise again! Now the server is still not working properly, the customer gets impatient, doesn't try again and asks Support for a re-fund. Now the re-fund cancels ALL downloads (i.e. removes all licenses in the system, including the "free" re-downloads), and each time a 1 is being subtracted from the download count. First time from 1 to 0. The second time our system gets confused because we defined the download value to be allowed positive only, so no -1 exists... Instead we are moving like in a circle of potential values, like on a clock 0:00 minus 1 results in 11:59, in a database 0 - 1 results in the highest number allowed in the field...

At least this is how I as an outside programmer would analyze this problem. And I don't need any wild theories about it, simple programming mistakes are enough. And we have seen too many of them in the past to dismiss that as a potential source for this, don't we?