MicrostockGroup

At least he still has his self-respect though. That's worth more than an inspector's badge.

If you recall the initial Agency ingestion where we lampooned here (and to a lesser extent on the iStock forums) some of the content they were including in the collection, it's clear that there is a lot of content that for one reason or another wouldn't meet iStock standards for the main collection, let alone Agency or Vetta. I never for one minute bought the excuse that it was a software glitch that resulted in those files getting approved.

Getty wants to flog as much of its content via iStock's traffic (ignoring the issue of how they could smother that fire completely if they aren't careful) as they can. I don't think they are as interested in accepting content from iStock exclusives to whom they have to pay higher royalties.

I don't think there is or will be any attempt to meld the two sets of acceptance criteria to make a single coherent whole for how you get content into Agency/Vetta. I think that we'll see more Getty collections soon and that the hints in JJRD's recent announcement with Andrew to smooth things over with contributors are about multiple standards and us learning to live with that.

I like that blown out woman in a field a lot - has a great feel to it - but I can't imagine that getting through iStock inspection. I think most people's issues are with multiple standards - why does the low-royalty stuff get a free pass while the higher royalty stuff has to jump very high hurdles.

In a sense, Getty would do better to let cheapo (<20%) independents contribute to Vetta and Agency, but there'd a riot among exclusives if they tried that

To me it feels like iStock is an Arab spring in reverse - going from something pretty open and collaborative and participatory to something pretty dictatorial and stratified. They don't care that we don't like it. I think they're on a road to have two Getty sites, at which point you'd ask what the point is of the second one.

I really applaud your attitude and your willingness to discuss problems reasonably. legitimate success is in all of our best interest, and we're all invested to varying degrees...to expect us to sit back and look the other way on these issues is unfair and disrespectful of our labours. I'm not going to post any of my rejections, though lately I seem to have royally ticked off some Vetta Gods...not to mention Agency.

But one examples of a file that should not be Agency:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14626236-businessman-playing-the-cup-game.php?st=2bc2ca0

don't understand all the whining - everything is subjective - just imagine the outcome if there were a set of standards programmed into a machine, do you think that scenario would be better & be more lucrative for the photographer? - my take on the pix of water coming out of copper pipe - it's a great stock pix! - it's about the water coming out not the whole * pipe, on the black couple - omg - hot spots - that's unacceptable with anyone in the know - yoga pose against that floor - go back to the pipe - what's the photo about the yoga concept or the floor? it would have worked if the floor was submitted separately by itself.  sure the inspectors have their preferences but none of these examples would be any different with different inspectors. better to figure out a way to have a viable group where buyers would go, pix would be great and we'd get paid fairly.  have yet to find that. 

So the water out of the pipe photo is no longer on iStock, Goldmund has deleted all his posts and asked leaf to delete the thread. What's up? Did someone at iStock express displeasure with discussion of this issue and request that Goldmund remove his posts?

I don't see why the thread should be deleted as others had something to say on the issues - not sure I like the idea of being able to revise history where things can be "un happened".

Goldmund, could you shed some light on why you removed everything?

I think most people have gone past caring.  Istock have ignored us for the past few years, making mistake after mistake.  How many non-exclusives here are going to bother with this?  I feel for exclusives but there's always the option to drop the crown.  Until istock see that treating contributors with contempt hits their profits, I don't think there's much we can do to improve things.  I really hope they have a change of attitude one day and the site can move back towards how it was a few years ago, when there were very few complaints from contributors.

Maybe we did act in some way, but just didn't have time to sort through random images to post here.

I also think that for many of us its just a given now...
The double standards (in really every aspect), the nepotism, the broken promises, the neverending greed,....
We've complained, been angry and frustrated, endlessly lamented about it... it doesnt change a thing, so each personally did what they felt is best and moved on...
I personally couldnt care less anymore, i know how they are and i'm not wasting anymore anger or frustration on them...

The only other factor here is that only an exclusive would have any Agency rejects to share. There are some ex exclusives like me, but not all that many current iStock exclusives who are active participants (there's Sean and then there's... ... )

The obvious place would be the Agency forum on iStock, but they wouldn't permit this sort of thing.

Perhaps you did, Stacy, but obviously many people thought I was just so inclined to show them my precious images.

I can see that it's a bit rough here with quite a few unpolished egos. Will stay around, just have to learn rules of conduct.

I've found some agency photos from time to time which IMO are worse than pics I've had rejected from the main collection. (Not often, as Agency focusses on advertising-style lifestyle, which I don't do). I'm sure independents who work in that genre can find the same issue, without much problem.
@Goldmund: I think it was what Sean said - you weren't going to get a rush of posts, but the thread could simmer on nicely for months.
FWIW, although there is a general rule ('gentlemen's agreement') about not calling out others' photos, IMO on the issue of ingestions, especially by pseudo-exclusives, it's perfectly fair. They're breaking the rules; tit for tat